Aliran Air Tanah Ugm

GROUNDWATER FLOW
COULEMENT SOUTERRAIN
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, 2013
Prof.Dr.Ir. Sunjoto Dip.HE, DEA-Hydrology of Groundwater-Post Graduate Program JTSL-FT-UGM
I.
INTRODUCTION
1. Etymology
Hydrogeology
(eng)
Geohydrologie (fr)
Geohidrologi (id)
Geohydrology
(eng)
Hydrogeologie (fr)
Hidrogeologi (id)
2. Hydrology
a. Water cycle
SUN
THE WATER CYCLE
Water storage in the atmosphere

Precipitation
Water storage
in ice and snow
Sublimation
Condensation
Snowmelt runoff to stream
Infiltration
Surface runoff
Evapotranspiration
Groundwater
discharge
Spring
Groundwater
storage
Fresh water storage
Evaporation
Water storage in oceans
Fig. 1.1. Hydrological cycle
b. Water Balance
Water balance on the ground surface is:
R
PE = R + I
P
E
R
I
: Precipitation
: Evapotranspiration
: Runoff
: Infiltration
Fig 1.2. Water balance on the ground surface
O
S
I - O = S
I : Inflow
O : Outflow
S : Storage
Fig 1.3. Water balance of the storage
Acccording to Lee R. (1980): P + Ev annual 5 .105 km 3/y, equal the depth 973
mm to cover the earth and needs 28 ceturies to evaporate by atmospheric
destilation.
c. Water Quantity in the Earth (Volume dimension x106 Km3 )

Table 1.1. Water distribution in the earth (Todd, 1970)
Volume x106
Items
Ocean location
Saline Water
1,320 Km3
Continents location
Lake fresh water
Lake saline water
Rivers
Soil moisture
Groundwater (above 4000 m)
Eternal ice and snow
Total volume
Atmosphere location:
Vapor
Percentage
97.300 %
0.125 Km3
0.0090 %
0.0080 %
0.0001 %
0.067 Km3
0.0050 %
0.6100 %
2.1400 %
0.104 Km
0.00125 Km
8.350 Km
29.200 Km
2.800 %
0.013 Km3
0.001 %
100.000 %
37.800 Km
1,360 Km
Total water
Table 1.2. Water distribution in the earth (Nace, 1971)

Items
Saline water
Ice & snow
Vapor
Groundwater
Surface water
Total water
Volume x106
Percentage
3
94.000 %
2.000 %
1,370 Km
30 Km
0.010 %
3
60 Km
4.000 %
0.040 %
100.000 %
Table 1.3. Water distribution in the earth (Huissman, 1978)

Items
Free water, consist of:
Saline water
Ice & snow
Vapor
Fresh water, consist of:
Groundwater
Surface water
Total water
Volume x106
1,370 Km
Percentage
97.200 %
2.100 %
0.001 %
0.600 %
98.80 %
1.20 %
100.000 %
4
Table 1.4. Water distribution in the earth (Baumgartner and Reichel, 1975)
Items
Solid
Liquid
Oceans
Continent; groundwater
Continent; surface water
Vapor
Total (all forms)
Saline water
Fresh water
Volume
Percentage
7
2.010 %
97.989 %
97.390 %
0.583 %
0.016 %
2.782 .10 Km
1.356 .10 Km
1.348 .10 Km
8.062 .10 Km
2.250 .10 Km
1.300 .104 Km3
0.001 %
97.938 %
2.202 %
1.384 .10 Km
1.348 .10 Km
3.602 .10 Km
100.000 %
Table 1.5. Fresh water distribution in the earth (Baumgartner and Reichel, 1975)
Items
Volume
Percentage
7
3
2.782 .10 Km
77.23 %
Solid
6
3
8.187 .10 Km
22.73 %
Liquid
6
3
7.996 .10 Km
22.20 %
Groundwater
4
3
6.123 .10 Km
0.17 %
Soil moisture
1.261 .105 Km3
0.35 %
Lakes
3
3
3.602 .10 Km
0.01 %
Rivers, organic
4
3
1.300 .10 Km
0.04 %
Vapor
7
3
3.602 .10 Km
100.00 %
Total (all forms)
Table 1.6. Annual average water balance components for the earth (Fig. 1.4)
Item
Area (10 km )
6
Continent
Ocean
361.10
510.00
148.90
Earth
Volume (103 km3)
Precipitation
+111
+385
+496
Evaporation
-71
-425
-496
Discharge
-40
+40
+745
+1066
+973
-477
-1177
-973
-269
+111
Avererage depth (mm)
Precipitation
Evaporation
Discharge
Source: (Baumgartner & Reichel, 1975 in Lee R., 1980)

P=111
Q=40
P=385
ATMOSPHER
E=71
Q=40
E=425
CONTINENT
Water balance:
OCEAN
P + E + Q = 0
Fig. 1.4. Earth water balance components, in 103 km3 (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
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Greater water conservation

Smaller surface storage
Smaller surface distribution system
Smaller drainage system
Reduced canal lining
Greater flood control
Ready integration with existing
development
Stage development facilitated
Smaller evapotranspiration losses
Greater control over flow
Improvement of power load
Less danger than dam failure
Reduction in weed seed distribution
Better timing of water distribution
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15. Almost good quality of water resources
Source: Clendenen in Todd, 1980.
Disadvantages
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
Table 1.8. Advantages and Disadvantages of subsurface and Surface Reservoirs (USBR)
Subsurface Reservoirs
Surface Reservoirs
Advantages
Disadvantages
1. Many large-capacity site available

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

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

4. Slight to no danger of catastrophic
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
5.
6.
7.
8.
structural failure
Uniform water temperature
High biological purity
Safe from immediate radio active fallout
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.
5.
6.
7.
Minor flood control value

Limited flow at any point
Power head usually not available
Difficult and costly to evaluate,
investigate and manage
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
climate
Require large land area
Ever-present danger of catastrophic
failure
Fluctuating water temperature
Easily contaminated
Easily contaminated radio active fallout
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
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
3. History
a. Dugwell
b. 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.
Fig. 1.5. A crude dug well in Shinyanga Region of Tanzania. (after DHV Con. Eng., in Todd,
1980) and Sketch of crude dug well cross section of step well.
Fig. 1.6. A traditional dug well and A modern domestic dug well with rock curb, concrete seal
and hand pump. (after Todd, 1980)
Fig 1.7. Communal dug well equipped by recharge systems surraunding the well.
Fig 1.8. Traditional step well in India it is called baollis or vavadi were built from 8th to 15th
century (Source: Nainshree G. Sukhmani A. Design of Water Conservation System
Through Rain Water Harvesting; An Excel Sheet Approach)
10
c. Qanat, Karez, Foggara

Qanat (arb), Karez (prs), Foggara (bbr-arb) 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. 1.9.). 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 m3.
Fig. 1.9. Vertical cross section along a qanat, gallery and shaft (after Beaumont, in Todd,
1980)
11
d. Roman domestic water system.

(http://staff.civil.uq.edu.au/h.chanson/rom_aq.html)
Roman aqueducts supplied waters to cities for public baths (thermes) and toilets
(latrines) (Hodge, 1992, Fabre et al. 2000), in addition of public fountains. They were
long subterranean conduits, following contours lines, with flat longitudinal slopes : i.e.,
1 to 3 m per km, even less at Nmes (0.24 m/km). Numerous aqueducts were used for
centuries and some are still in use (e.g. Carthage, Mons). Their construction was a
huge task, often performed by the army under the guidance of military hydraulic
engineers. Their cost was extra-ordinary considering the real flow rate (i.e. less than
400 L/s) : about 1 to 3 millions sesterces per kilometre in average (Fevrier, 1979,
Leveau, 1991)
Several aqueducts (Fig.1.12.) were equipped with regulation basins installed along the
canal. For example, at Ars-sur-Moselle (Metz); at the Valle de l'Eure, upstream of
Pont-du-Gard, at Lafoux along the Nmes aqueduct; at Segovia upstream of the
aqueduct bridge. Most regulation basins were equipped with a series of gates and an
overflow system. Basic hydraulic considerastions imply that undershoot gates were
used to regulate the aqueduct flow while overshoot gates were used for the overflow
discharge (Chanson, 2000b). The aqueducts provided a constant flow of fresh water
into the bath houses. The best water supplied to the city was used for drinking
water. The baths were given the next best supply. Likewise, an equally impressive
system known as the Cloaca Maxima (literally, Latin for giant sewer) carried away
the used water filled with Romes trash, human and animal waste, and even bodies of
dead slaves. The sewer system flowed through and under much of Rome and still
drains rain water and debris from modern Rome. Hydraulic calculations were
conducted for two large regulation basins on the Gorze and Nmes aqueducts. This
type of operation implied fine gate opening adjustment systems to enable precise
flow regulation.
12
Fig 1.10. Roman water coveyance and water distribution system
Note:
1. Infiltration gallery/qanat
2. Steep chute in this case dropshafts
3. Settling tank
4. Tunnel and shafts
5. Covered trench
6. Aquaduct bridge
7. Siphon
8. Substruction
9. Arcade
10. Distribution basin
11. Water distribution (pipes)
Fig 1.11. Sketch of Roman city water system provider from ground water resources to the
city.
13
Fig 1.12. Roman aquaduct
e. Springs
Spring is an outflow of ground water to the ground surface due to hydraulic head or
gravitational force (Fig. 1.13). 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.
Fig. 1.13. Diagrams that illustrating types of gravity springs. (a). Depression spring. (b).
Contact springs. (c). Fracture artesian spring. (d). Solution tabular spring and
Schematic cross section illustrating unconfined and confined aquifer (after Bryan, in
Todd, 1980)
f. Kaptering
Kaptering (ducth) is a building of spring catcher. The ancient kaptering in Indonesia
in Trowulan as capital of Majapahit Kingdom it was implemented since 12nd century
14
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. 1.13).
This construction must keep that the spring have not the excess water pressure, it is
mean that the hydrostatic pressure must be equal or lower than before the
development. Much mistake de spring catcher development when designer aim to
increase the elevation of the natural elevation of the spring to get higher hydraulic
head. The problem will occur to the hydrostatic pressure of the soil or rock
surrounding the spring and when the pressure bigger than the carrying capacity of
soil it will create the leakage and finally the spring will be move to the other
direction.
Fig 1.14. Kaptering or spring water catcher of the Kingdom, recently its called Tikus Temple
and Water pond with brick structure which is called Segaran Pond (pcp)
15
Fig. 1.15. Conveyance and distribution pipes to the housing in Trowulan as a capital of
Majapahit Kingdom (Photo: Prof. Hardjoso P.)
Fig 1.16. Ancient fountains and dug well cased by bricks in the housing of the Kingdom
(Photo: Prof. Hardjoso P.)
g. Crush Bore Well (Cable tool)

(http://www.welldrillingschool.com/courses/pdf/DrillingMethods.pdf)
Cable tool had its beginnings 4000 years ago in China. It was the earliest drilling
method and has been in continuous use for about 4000 years. The Chinese used tools
16
constructed of bamboo and well depths of 3000 ft. are recorded. However, wells of
this depth often took generations to complete. Cable tool rigs are sometimes called
pounders, percussion, spudder or walking beam rigs. They operate by repeatedly
lifting and dropping a heavy string of drilling tools into the borehole. The drill bits
breaks or crushes consolidate rock into small fragments. When drilling in
unconsolidated formations, the bit primarily loosens material.
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 .
For a cable tool drill to operate the drill string must have these four components:
Drilling cable - lifts tools, turns tools, controls tool motion.
Swivel socket - connects cable to tools, allows cable to unwind.
Drill stem - provides weight, steadies and guides bit.
Drill bit - penetrates formation, crushes and reams, mixes cuttings. Many cable
tool drillers now employ Tungsten Carbide studded bits to aid in hard rock
penetration.
h. Auger Drilling
Often used for site investigation, environmental and geotechnical drilling and
sampling, and boreholes for construction purposes, auger drilling can be an efficient
drilling method. The advantages of auger drilling include low operating costs, fast
penetration rates in suitable formations and no contamination of samples by fluids.
Augers come in continuous flight, short flight/plate augers and bucket augers.
Continuous flight augers driven by top head rotary machines (shown above) carry
17
their cuttings to the surface on helical flights. Continuous flight augers with hollow
stems are often used for sample recovery in environmental, geotechnical operations.
i. Rotary Drilling
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.
Rotary drilling uses a sharp, rotating drill bit to dig down through the Earth's crust.
Much like a common hand held drill, the spinning of the drill bit allows for penetration
of even the hardest rock. The idea of using a rotary drill bit is not new.
Archeological records show that as early as 3000 B.C., the Egyptians may have been
using a similar technique. Leonardo Di Vinci, as early as 1500, developed a design for a
rotary drilling mechanism that bears much resemblance to technology used today.
Despite these precursors, rotary drilling did not rise in use or popularity until the
early 1900's. Although rotary drilling techniques had been patented as early as 1833,
most of these early attempts at rotary drilling consisted of little more than a mule,
attached to a drilling device, walking in a circle! It was the success of the efforts of
Captain Anthony Lucas and Patillo Higgins in drilling their 1901 'Spindletop' well in
Texas that catapulted rotary drilling to the forefront of petroleum drilling
technology.
While the concept for rotary drilling - using a sharp, spinning drill bit to delve into
rock - is quite simple, the actual mechanics of modern rigs are quite complicated. In
addition, technology advances so rapidly that new innovations are being introduced
constantly. The basic rotary drilling system consists of four groups of components.
The prime movers, hoisting equipment, rotating equipment, and circulating equipment
all combine to make rotary drilling possible.
j. Down the hole air hammer
To drill effectively in hard formations, rotary bits require very high pull down
pressures. These pressures may be beyond the design capabilities of small to medium
18
drill rigs. And, as was stated earlier, excessive pull down pressures may damage the
drill string and deflect the trueness of the hole. If the hard rock formation is near
the surface, even larger rigs have trouble with penetration as the weight of the drill
string is not relatively great when drilling is beginning. The down hole hammer is an
air activated percussive drilling bit which operates in the manner of the jack
hammer commonly seen in surface construction. Constructed from alloy steel with
heavy tungsten-carbide inserts that provide the cutting or chipping surfaces. These
inserts are subject to wear and may be replaced or reground improve penetration
rates. Corrosion (rust) is the DHHs greatest enemy. It must be kept well lubricated
at all times. And it should be opened and inspected after every 100 hours of
continuous operation.
k. Jet Drilling
Drilling in unconsolidated formation with high water availability allows jet drilling to
be a viable drilling method. Often employed in drilling shallow irrigation wells, jet
drilling is achieved by water circulation down through the rods washing cuttings from
in front of the bit. The cutting flow up the annular space and in a settling pit so that
the water can be re-circulated. Jetting in semi consolidated formations may be
assisted by using a hammering technique to chop through hard bands. This
technique is a combination of jetting and percussion. A fish-tail type rotary bit may
be used and the pipe rotated to cut the hole. All hydraulic (water based) drilling
requires that the hole be kept full off water until it is cased.
19
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.
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.
20
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
b. Edme Mariotte (1620-1684)
In his book Des mouvements des eaux Seine River: Discharge Q = 200.000 ft3/min,
local flow is 1/6 part, evaporation is 1/3 part and infiltration is 1/3 part.
c. Edmund Halley (16561742)
He developed the equation of balance : I O = S
d. Daniel Bernoulli (1700-1782)
He stated that, in a steady flow, the sum of all forms of mechanical energy in a fluid
along a streamline is the same at all points on that streamline.
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 19th century.
f. Reynold (1883)
The Reynolds
number NR is
a dimensionless
number that
gives
measure
of
the ratio of inertial forces V2/L to viscous forces V/L2 and consequently quantifies
the relative importance of these two types of forces for given flow conditions.
g. Henry Philibert Gaspard Darcy (June 10, 1803 January 3, 1858)
On his books Les fontaines publiques de Dijon (1856), he developed mathematical
equation for flow in porous media.
21
h. Badon Gabon (1888) and Herzberg (1901)

They developed equilibrium theory of fresh water and saline water in the circular
island with porous soil.
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 packer 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.
22
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.
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.
Hot groundwater
Japanese
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
Force
m
l
t
mlt-2
gram
meter
second
N (Newton) = kgm.s-2
Energy
ml2t-2
J (Joule)
Power
ml2t-3
W (Watt) = N.m.s-1
Pressure
ml-1t-2
N.m-2
= N.m
b. Metric prefixes
Table 1.9. Metric prefices
Prefix
Symbol
Factor
Prefix
Symbol
Factor
tera
1012
centi
10-2
giga
109
milli
10-3
mega
106
micro
10-6
kilo
103
nano
10-9
hecto
102
pico
10-12
deca
da
101
femto
10-15
deci
10-1
atto
10-18
24
c. Conversion of unit
Table 1.10. Conversion
Description
Unit
mks
Note
Force
1 kg
g.N
1 N = 105 dynes
Energy
1 kg.m
g.J
g = 9.78 m.s-2 = 32.3 ft.s-2
Power
1 kg.ms-1
g.W
1 HP = 75.g.W = 734 W
d. Metric-English equivalents
Table 1.11. Metric-English equivqlent
1). Length
1 cm = 0.3937 in
1m
5). Velocity
1 m/s = 3.281 ft/s
= 3.281 ft
1 km = 0.6214 mi
= 2.237 mi/hr
1 km/hr = 0.9113 ft/s
2). Area
= 0.6214 mi/hr
1 cm2 = 0.1550 in2

1 m2 = 10.76 ft2
1 ha = 2.471 acre
1 km2 = 0.3861 mi2
3). Volume
1 cm3 = 0.06102 in3
6). Temperature
o
C = K 273.15
= (o F 32)/1.8
7). Pressure
1 Pa = 9.8692 .10-6 atm
= 10-5 bar
1l
= 0.2642 gal = 0.03531 ft3
= 10-2 millibar
1m3
= 264.2 gal = 35.31 ft3
= 10 dyne/cm2
= 8.106 .10-4 acre.ft
= 3.346 .10-4 ft H2O (4o C)

= 2.953 .10-4 in Hg ( 0o C)
4). Mass
1g
= 2.205 .10-3 lb (mass)
1 kg = 2.205 lb (mass)
= 9.842 .10-4 long ton
= 0.0075 mm Hg
= 0.1020 kg (force)/m2
= 0.02089 lb (force)/ft2
25
8). Flow rate

1 l/s
= 15.85 gpm
= 0.02282 mgd = 0.03531 cfs
1 m3/s = 1.585 .104 gpm
14). Gravitational acceleration, g

9.807 m/s2 = 32.2 ft/s2 (std., free fall)
15). Heat
1 J/m2 = 8.806 .10-5 BTU/ft2
= 22.82 mgd = 35.31 cfs

1 m3/d = 0.1834 gpm
1 J/kg = 4.299 .10-4 BTU/lb (mass)
= 2.642 .10-4 mgd = 4.087 .10-4 cfs

9). Force
1N
2.390 .10-5 cal/cm2
= 2.388 .10-4 cal/g

16). Density of water,
= 105 dyne
1000 kgmass/m3 = 1.94 slugs/ft3

(when 50o F/10o C)
= 0.1020 kg (force)
= 0.2248 lb (force)
17). Specific weight of water,

9.807 .103 N/m3 = 62.4 lb/ft3 (50oF/10oC)
10). Power
1 W = 9.478 .10-4 BTU/s
18). Dynamic viscosity of water,
= 0.2388 cal/s
1.30 .10-3 Pa.s=2.73 .10-5lb.s/ft2(50o/10oC)
= 0.7376 ft.lb (force)/s
10-3 Pa.s = 2.05 .10-5 lb.s/ft2 (68o F/20o C)
11). Water quality

1 mg/l = 1 ppm = 0.0584 grain/gal
12). Hydraulic conductivity
1 m/d = 24.54 gpd/ft2
= 1.198 darcy (water 20o C)
1 cm/s = 2.121 .104 gpd/ft2
= 1035 darcy (water 20o C)
13). Viscosity
1 Pa.s = 103 centistoke= 10 poise
= 0.02089 lb (force).s/ft2
19). Kinematic viscosity of water,

1.30.10-6m2/s=1.41 .10=5 ft2/s(50o F/10oC)
10-6 m2/s = 1.06 .10-5 ft2/s (68o F/20o C)
20). Atmospheric pressure, p (std)
1.013 .105 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
1 m2/s = 106 centistoke = 10.76 ft2/s
26
e. Legends
1). Density
Symbol
Dimension
: ml-3
Unit
: kgmass.m-3 or slug.ft-3
Detail:
1 slug = 14.60 kgmass
1 feet = 0.305 m
1 slug.ft-3
= 514.580 kgmass.m-3
In practical use:
pure water
= 1,000 kgmass.m -3
= 1.94 slug.ft-3
sea water
= 1,026 kgmass.m -3
= 1.99 slug.ft-3
Table 1.12. Density of pure water in kgmass.m-3 dependent temperature to C

t
t
t
t
999.8679
10
999.7277
20
998.2323
30
995.6756
999.9267
12
999.5247
22
997.7993
32
995.0542
1000.0000
14
999.2712
24
997.3256
34
994.3991
999.9081
16
998.9701
26
996.8128
36
993.7110
999.8762
18
998.6232
28
996.2623
38
992.9936
2). Specific weight
Symbol
: = .g
Dimension
: ml-2t-2
Unit
: N.m-3 atau lbs.ft-3
27
3). Specific Gravity
Symbol
: s
Dimension
:-
Unit
:-
s = /w
= /w
4). Viscosity
(a). Dynamic viscosity
Symbol
Dimension
: ml-1t-1
Unit
: N.s.m-2
1 N.s.m-2 = 10 poise; 478 poise = 1 lbs.ft-2
Table 1.13. Dynamic viscosity of water in 10-2 poisses dependent temperature to C

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

Suface specific is the total area of particle (m2) per unit mass (m 2/g)
This value depend on the forme of particle and has big role on the phenomena the
liquid-solid suface, especially for the absorbstion and swelling.
For example one sphere with d diameter and s= 2.7 g/cm 3 of specific mass and the
thikness of particle is e so the sufarce specific is:
62 . 104
2. 104 0.75. 104 2
=
=
=

2 . . 2.7
. 2.7

4.
4
When this formula is implemented for the plaquette of monmorollonite so

=
0.75. 104 2
= 750 2
107
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
Ground surface
Soil water zone

P
ZONE OF
AERATION
Intermediate
vadoze
zone
e
VADOZE
WATER
r
m
e
Capillary zone
Groundwater table
ZONE OF
SATURATION
Saturated zone
GROUND /
PHREATIC
WATER
l
e
Impermeable
Fig. 2.1. Diagram of zones in permeable soil
Prof.Dr.Ir. Sunjoto Dip.HE, DEA-Subsurface Hydrology-Post Graduate Program JTSL-FT-UGM=2012
30
a. Zone of Aeration
This zone divided into:
Soil water zone
Intermediate vadose zone
Capillary zone
2 = 2
=
hc
2r
hc
: height of capillary zone

: surface tension (dynes/cm)
: specific weight of water
: radius of tube
: contact angle of water and wall
(2.1)
When pure water in clean glass, = 0

and temperature at 20o C so value of
s = 75 dyne/cm
= 0.076 g/cm and,
=
0.15
Fig. 2.2. Schematic of capillary rise
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
5 -2
2.50
Very coarse sand
2 -1
6.50
Coarse sand
1 0.5
1.50
Medium sand
0.5 0.2
24.60
Fine sand
0.2 0.1
42.80
Silt
0.1 0.05
105.50
Silt
0.05 0.002
200.00
Table 2.3. Capillary rice of some soils type (Murthy, 1977)

Soils Type
Sand, coarse
Size of particles (mm)
Capillary rise (cm)
2.00 - 0,60
1.50 5
Sand, medium
0.60 0.20
5 15
Sand, fine
0.20 0.06
15 - 50
Silt
0.06 0.002
50 - 1,500
Clay, coarse
0.002 0.0002
1,500 15,000
Clay, colloid
< 0.0002
>15,000
32
b. Zone of Saturation
1). Specific retention (Sr)
Sr
= Wr / V
(2.2)
Wr
: the rest water volume after drainage
: total volume of soil
2). Specific yield (Sy)

Sy
= Wy / V
Wy
: volume of water which be drained
= S r + Sy
(2.3)
(2.4)
c. Solid Liquid and Air System

Solid phase
geometricly difficult be soluble
Liquid phase :
solution organic & unorganic
Air phase
vapor
Va
air
Wa
Vw
water
Ww
Vs
solid
Ws
Vv
Fig. 2.3. Diagram of solid, water and air relationship

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:
=
(2.5)
2). Porosity (n)

The ratio of the volume of voids (Vv) to the total volume (V), is defined as
porosity, so:
=
100%
(2.6)
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%
(2.7)
4). Water content (w)

The ratio of weight of water (Ww) in the voids to the weight of solids so:
=
100%
(2.8)
5). Unit Weight
a). Unit weight of water (w)

The ratio of weight of water to the volume of water in the same temperature
(w) and (o) is designated as unit weight of water at 4o C.
= 1
3=1
3=1
3 = 1000
34
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:
(2.9)
c). Dry unit weight mass (d)

The ratio of the weight of solids (Ws) to the total volume (V)
(2.10)
d). Ratio of the saturated weight of the mass (sat)

Saturated unit weight soil mass (when S = 100%) to the total volume (V).
(2.11)
e). Unit weight of solid (s)

The ratio of the weight of solids (Ws) to the volume of solids (Vs)
(2.12)
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 4o C.
The specific gravity of mass of soil including air, water and solid:
=
= =
(2.13)
The specific gravity of mass of soil excluding air, water and solid:
=
=
= =

(2.14)
35
3. Type of Aquifer
gs
gs
K1<K
gwt = ps
a. Unconfined aquifer
b. Semi unconfined aquifer

gs
K=0
gs
ps
ps
K1<K
gwt
gwt
D=H
gs
gwt
gwt
e. Suspended aquifer
d. Semi confined/leaky aquifer
c. Confined aquifer
gwt = ps
Note:
gs
ps
gwt
gwt
D
H
K
:
:
:
:
ground surface
piezometric surface
groundwater table
groundwater table of
perched water
: thickness of aquifer
: depth of groundwater
: coefficient of permeability
Fig. 2.4. Types of aquifers
Note: Compare to Todd (1980) page 44 about leaky aquifer, which the elevation of
gwt is higher than ps.
36
III.
BASIC PARAMETERS
1. Law of Groundwater Flow

a. Poiseuilles Law
where
2
=
8
va
w
R
i
A
Qa
Z
(3.1)
: average velocity
: unit weight of water
: radius of tube
: viscosity of fluid
: hydraulic gradient
: area
: average discharge
= w.R2/8
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:

=
Substitute to the Laplace Equation:

=
+
+
Consider on x direction only so:
=0
&
=0
(3.3)
37
The equation becomes:
=
+
=
= +
= +
= +
(3.4)
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:
=
Q
K
A
dh
dl
i
: discharge
: section area of aquifer
: difference water elevation
: length of aquifer
= dh/dl
where,
(3.4)
c. Based on Dupuit (1863), according to Castany (1967):

= . i = sin =
=
2 + 2
dx
2 + 2
2
1 +
dy
2 + 2
:
=
2 + 2
2
1 +
38
Due to the assumption of vertical velocity is so small, (dy/dx)2 can be neglected so :

2
1 + = 1
(3.5)
2). Similar equations

Fouriers Law on heat transfer {Jean Baptiste Joseph Fourier (1768 1830)}:
(3.6)
where,
H
k
A
dT
dx
i
: rate of heat flow

: thermal conductivity
: cross section area
: temperature difference
: thickness
= dT/dx
Ohms Law on electrical current flow {George Simon Ohm (1787 - 1854)}:
=
where,
I
C
a
dv
dl
i
:
:
:
:
:
:
(3.7)
current
coefficient of conductivity
sectional area of conductor
drop in voltage
length of conductor
dv/dl
39
3). Validity of Darcy Law
It can be written in other equation as:

=
where,
NR
D
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
(3.8)
(3.9)
Reynolds Number
diameter of pipe
density of water
flow velocity
viscosity of fluid
unit weight of fluid
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).
4. The development of the post post Darcy
After Darcy developed his fundamental formula on his book Les fountains publiques
de Dijon (1856), many researchers developed other formulas based on his, except
Forhheimer (1930). The Darcys formula in vector form is very advance and easy to
developed basic formula to explain for many condition of flow for instance together
with Laplace equation or for mono-phase or bi-phase flow, but it is impossible to use it
to compute the design of groundwater flow. Forchheimer (1930) simplified Darcys
formula and introduce new parameter is shape factor (F) and this formula easily to
use to compute the design of groundwater flow. Sunjoto (1988), developed new
unsteady flow condition formula based on Forchheimers formula which is a steady
state condition. Beside the unsteady state formula, Sunjoto developed more than 20
formulas of shape factors.
40
FOURIER (1768-1830)
H= K.i.A
POISEUILLE (1797-1869)
Qa=Z.i.A
OHM (1789 -1854

I=C.i..a
DARCY (1856)
Ehrenberger (1928),
Vodgeo Institut (1954),
Iokutaro Kano (1939),
Vibert (1949),
Castany (1967)
V= K.i.A
Ri
Sichardt
Cambefort
Choultse
Koussakine
Castany
Kozen
Bogomolov
Q, K
Q, K, s
S &T
FORCHHEIMER
(1930)
LUGEON
(1930)
DUPUIT
(1863)
THEIS (1936)
Q, K
Castany (1967)
Murthy (1977)
Suharjadi
F
Samsioe (1931), Dahler
(1936), Taylor (1948),
Hvorslev (1951), Aravin
(1965), Wilkinson (1968), AlDahir & Morgenstern (1969),
Luthian & Kirkham (1949),
Kirkham & van Bavel (1948),
Raymond & Azzouz (1969),
Smiles & Young (),Sunjoto
(1988; 2002)
Glover (1966)
Q
S&T
H, Q, K
SUNJOTO
(1988-2010)
Note:
V : velocity
Q : discharge
K : permeability
F : shape factor
I : hydraulic head H : hydraulic head
Cooper-Jacob
(1946)
Chow (1952)
Todd (1980)
h : drawdown correction
s : drawdown
Ri : radius of depletion
Mikel & Klaer (1956),

Spiridonoff &
Hantush (1964),
Nasjono (2002), Das,
Saha, Rao &
Uththmanthan (2009)
S:
T:
Figure 3.1. Diagram of development of groundwater science

41
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:
=
= .
1 +
(3.10)
The relationship between real pore channels to the idealized pore channel is:
=
where,
L
a
L
a
:
:
:
:
length of idealized channel

area of idealized channel
length of real channel
area of real channel
(3.11)
2). Grain size

If the cross section of a tube is circular, the flow in the tube as per Poiseuilles
Law is:
=
The average velocity flow in the tube:
(3.12)
42
2 2
=
=
.
8
32
(3.13)
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,
=
=
2.
162
(314)
Where, C is constant which is independent of temperature and the expression of

K may now be as below and K varies as w/.
= . . ().
(3.15)
4). Structure and stratification

Kv
K1
V1.i.K1
Z1
K2
V2.i.K2
Z2
Kn-1
Vn-1.i.Kn-i
Kn
Vn.i.Kn
Kh
Zn-1
Zn
Fig 3.2. Diagram of soil layers structure

a). Flow in the Horizontal Direction
Q = V.A = V. Z = K.i.Z
Q = (V1.Z1 + V2.Z 2 + + Vn-1.Zn-1 + Vn.Zn)
Q = (K1.i.Z1 + K2.i.Z2 + + Kn-1.i.Zn-1 + Kn.i.Zn)
=
( + + + )

(3.16)
43
b). Flow in the Vertical Direction

The hydraulic gradient is h/Z and:
=
= 1 1 = 2 2 =
If h1, h2 hn are the loss of heads in each of the layers, therefore:
or,
H = h1 + h2 + hn
H = Z1h1 + Z2H2+ ..Zn Hn
Substitution:
=
+
+ +

(3.17)
b. Method of Determination
1). Laboratory Method
a). Constant head permeability method
The coefficient of permeability K is computed:
b). Falling head permeability method
(3.18)
(3.19)
The coefficient of permeability K can be determined on the basis of drop in head

(ho- h1 ) and the elapse time (t1 - to).
= = . .
( )
when A = a the equation be:

(3.20)
(3.21)
44
where:

( )
K
:
L
:
A
:
a
:
ho h1 :
to t1 :
(3.22)
coefficient of permeability
length of sample
cross section area of sample
cross section area stand pipe
head of water in observation well 1 and 2 respectively
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:
=
where,
K
L
A
Q
h
t
. .
:
:
:
:
:
:
(3.23)
length of sample
cross section area of sample
discharge in certain time t
average head
duration of flow
d). Computation from grain size distribution

On the basis of Poiseuilles Law the coefficient of permeability can be computed:
= 2
(3.41)
According to Allen Hazen (1911) in Murthy (1977) the empirical equation can be
computed as:
2
= 10
where,
K
C
D10
: coefficient of permeability (cm/s)

: a factor (100 <C< 150)
: effective size of grain (cm)
(3.24)
45
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.
46
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)
h
hw
rw
r
R
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:
A = 2rh
(4.1)
47
The hydraulic gradient is:
(4.2)
V = Ki
(4.3)
Q = KiA
(4.4)
Discharge of inflow when the water levels in the well remain stationary (Darcys Law)
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)
(4.7)
The equation for permeability of soil is:

=
where,
H
: depth of water outside of aquifer layer
hw
: depth of water at face of pumping well
: radius of outside of aquifer layer
rw
: radius of pumped well
48
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:
h2
h1
r1
r
r2
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:
=
Rearranging the terms, so:

(4.8)
49
2
=
The equation for permeability of soil is:

=
(4.9)
The equation for discharge outflow from pumping is (Fig, 4.2):

Dupuit-Thiem Formula for the full penetration well in free aquifer:
where,
Q
K
D
r1 r2
h1 h2
:
:
:
:
:
(4.10)
discharge of pumping
thickness of aquifer layer
distance from well to observation well 1 and 2 respectively
2). According to Castany (1967)

G. Thiem (1906) based on Dupuit principle developed a formula of pumping
in unconfined aquifer and the formula is called Dupuit-Thiem (Fig. 4.3.).
Darcys law:
= 2
dr/dh = tg
= 2. tg
(4.11)
(4.12)
(4.13)
50
1
w
h2
h1
hw
rw
r1
r2
Ri
tg =
1 2
r2 r1
For first permanent regime:
(4.14)
= 21 1 . tg
(4.15)
= 21 11 . tg1
(4.16)
For second permanent regime:
Dupuit-Thiem equation for the full penetration well in free aquifer:

( + )( )
( + )( )
=
where:
Q
K
r1 r2
1 2
:
:
:
:
(4.17)
(4.18)
drawdown in observation well 1 and 2 respectively
51
3). According to Murthy V.N.S. (1977)

Murthy developed the formula for unconfined aquifer by other parameters
and can be found as (Fig.5.3.):
=
=
( )
( )
(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:
Q
K
Ri
rw
H
w
: discharge of pumping
: radius of influence
: radius of pumped well
: depth of water before pumping
: maximum drawdown (on well)
52
2. Confined aquifer
a. Dupuit (1863)
H
hw
rw
R
= . =
= 2
] = 2]

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

( )
=
where,
Q
K
D
R
rw
H
hw
:
:
:
:
:
:
(4.23)
(4.24)
thickness of aquifer
radius of influence
radius of pumped well
depth of water outside of aquifer layer
: depth of water at face of pumping well
53
b. Dupuit-Thiem (1906)
1). According to UNESCO (1967)
h1
h2
r1
r2
Fig. 4.5. Circular unconfined embankment
=
Dupuit-Thiem formula for full penetration well on confined aquifer:

( )
=
where,
Q
K
D
r1 r2
h1 h2
:
:
:
:
:
(4.25)
(4.26)
thickness of aquifer
54
2). According to Castany (1967)
h2
h1
D
r1
r2
Dupuit-Thiem equation for the full penetration well in confined aquifer:

=
=
( )
( )
where:
Q
K
D
r1 r2
1 2
:
:
:
:
:
(4.27)
(4.28)
thickness of aquifer layer
drawdown in observation well 1 and 2 respectively
3. Alternate equations of the Dupuit-Thiem principle for radial flow are:

1). Pumping in circular aquifer
a). Unconfined aquifer:
o Without observation well and with piezometric head data:
55
( )
(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:

=
( )
(4.33)
o With one observation well and with piezometric head data:

=
(4.34)
o With one observation well and with drawdown data:

56
( )
( + )( )
o With two observation wells data and piezometric head data:
(4.35)
(4.36)
(4.37)
o With two observation wells and drawdown data:

=
( + )( )
(4.38)
b). Confined aquifer:

=
=

( )
.
o With one observation well and with piezometric head data:
( )
o With one observation well and with drawdown data:
( )
o With two observations well and piezometric head data:
( )
(4.39)
4.40)
(4.41)
(4.42)
o With two observations well and drawdown data:
57
( )
( )
(4.43)
(4.44)
4. Field test of soils permeability

a). Pumping test
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.
b). Casing Bore hole test
1). Murthy (1977)
According to Murthy (1977), hydraulic gradient of the some conditions are:
(a). Without pressure and end casing above groundwater table
H = hw
(4.45)
(b). Without pressure and end casing below groundwater table

H = hw
(4.46)
(c). With pressure and end casing above groundwater table

H = hw + hp
(4.47)
(d). With pressure and end casing below groundwater table

H = hw + hp
(4.48)
58
Q & hp
hw
Q & hp
hw
Hb
hw
hw
Hg
(2). H=hw
(3). H=hw+ hp
(4). H=hw+ hp
Fig 4.7. Bore hole in some conditions
The coefficient of permeability is calculated by making use of formula:

=
where:
Q
K
H
0.18

(4.49)
: discharge (L3/T)
: coefficient of permeability (L/T)
: hydraulic head (L) Fig. 3.2.
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.
( )
(4.50)
59
where:
K
R
F
t1
h1
As
:
:
:
t2 :
coefficient of permeability (L/T)

radius of well (L)
shape factor (L) (F = 4 R, Forchheimer, 1930)
time of the measurement respectively (T)
h2 : height of water of the measurement respectively (L)

: cross section area of well (L2 , As = R2)
c). Partial permeable casing bore hole test

1). 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
Q
Hw
gwt
Hw
gwt
2R
(1). The hole test below ground
water table
(H=Hw)
2R
(2). The hole test above ground
water table
H=Hc+1/2L
Fig. 4.8 Hydraulic head dimension on bore hole test according to Suharyadi (1984)
60
The coefficient of permeability can be computed by:

=
2.30
=
2
2
(4.51)
where,
K
L
H
R
:
:
:
:
length of permeable part
Hydraulic head (L R)
radius of casing
d). Uncasing bore hole test

1). Pecker test
Suharyadi (1984)
(4.52)
= +
Q and H2
H1
(4.53)
Q and H2
Q and H2
Q and H2
H1
gwt
gwt
H1
H1
L
L
1/2L
L
1/2L
gwt
gwt
2R
(a). One pecker test
which zone test
is submerged
2R
(b). One pecker test
which zone test is
above groundwater table
2R
(c). Two peckers test
which zone test
is submerged
2R
(d). Two peckers test
which zone test is
above groundwater table
Fig. 4.9. Hydraulic head dimension on packer test (after Suharyadi, 1984)
61
2). Boast and Kirkham (in Todd, 1980)

=
(4.54)
Lw
H
2rw
Fig. 4.10. Diagram of auger hole and dimensions for determining coefficient of permeability
(after Boast and Kirkham, in Todd, 1980)
3). Sunjoto (1988)
where:
=
H
F
K
Q
C
I
A
2
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
(4.55)
depth of hollow well (L)

shape factor (L)
inflow discharge (L3/T), dan Q = C I A
runoff coefficient of roof ( )
precipitation intensity (L/T)
roof area (L2)
Note:
When steady flow condition (8.53) become F =Q/KH

The solution of this equation by trial and error.
62
Table 4.1. Value of C after Boast and Kirkham (in Todd, 1980)
Lw/
rw
y/
Lw
(H-Lw)/Lw for Impermeable Layer
H-Lw
0.05
0.1
0.2
0.5
(H-Lw)/Lw for Infinitely

Impermeable Layer
5
2
1
0.5
1.00
0.75
0.50
447
469
555
423
450
537
404
434
522
375
408
497
323
360
449
286
324
411
264
303
386
255
292
380
254
291
379
252
289
377
241
278
359
213
248
324
166
198
264
1.00
0.75
0.50
186
196
234
176
187
225
167
180
218
154
168
207
134
149
188
123
138
175
118
133
169
116
131
167
115
131
167
115
130
166
113
128
164
106
121
156
91
106
139
1.00
0.75
0.50
51.9
54.8
66.1
48.6
52.0
63.4
46.2
49.9
61.3
42.8
46.8
58.1
38.7
42.8
53.9
36.9
41.0
51.9
36.1
40.2
51.0
35.8
40.0
50.7
35.5
39.6
40.3
34.6
38.6
49.2
32.4
36.3
466
10
1.00
0.75
0.50
18.1
19.1
23.3
16.9
18.1
22.3
16.1
17.4
21.5
15.1
16.5
20.6
14.1
15.5
19.5
13.6
15.0
19.0
13.4
14.8
18.8
13.4
14.8
18.7
13.3
14.7
18.6
13.1
14.5
18.4
12.6
14.0
17.8
20
1.00
0.75
0.50
59.1
62.7
76.7
55.3
59.4
73.4
53.0
57.3
71.2
50.6
55.0
68.8
48.1
52.5
66.0
47.0
51.5
64.8
46.6
51.0
64.3
46.4
50.8
64.1
46.2
50.7
63.9
45.8
50.2
63.4
44.6
48.9
61.9
50
1.00
0.75
0.50
1.25
1.33
1.64
1.28
1.27
1.57
1.14
1.23
1.54
1.11
1.20
1.50
1.07
1.16
1.46
1.05
1.14
1.44
1.04
1.13
1.43
1.03
1.12
1.42
1.02
1.11
1.39
100
1.00
0.75
0.50
0.37
0.40
0.49
0.35
0.38
0.47
0.34
0.37
0.46
0.34
0.36
0.45
0.33
0.35
0.44
0.32
0.35
0.44
0.32
0.35
0.44
0.32
0.34
0.43
0.31
0.34
0.43
Table 4.2. Coefficient of Permeability of some Soils (Casagrande and Fadum)

K (cm/sec)
Soils type
Drainage
Condition
101 - 102
Clean gravels
Good
Pumping Test
101
Clean sand
Good
Constant head or Pumping test
10-1 10-4
Clean sand and gravel
Good
Constant head, Falling head
mixtures
Recommended method of
determining K
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
63
e). Lugeon Test

Maurice Lugeon (July 10, 1870 - October 23, 1953) was a Swiss geologist, and
the pioneer of nape tectonics. He was a pupil of Eugne Renevier. The Lugeon test,
extensively used in Europe, is a special case of double packer 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.
o
One Lugeon (LU) is equal to one liter of water per minute injected into 1 meter
length of borehole at an injection pressure of 10 bars.
1 Lugeon Unit = a water take of 1 liter per meter per minute at a pressure of 10
bars.
Lugeon value : water take (liter/m/min) x 10 bars/test pressure (in bars)

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.
Uncertainaty of Lugeon Unit Theory:
The test carried out 5 minute only, so you dont know is the flow in stady
state or unsteady state flow condition
The layer of the soil or rock have no to be taken as consideration
The diameter of hol is not be taken as consideration.
64
Analysis:
This test will be analyzed by principle of:
Forhheimer (1930) for steady flow condition

=
Sunjoto (2010) for un steady flow condition

=
(4.55)
Sunjoto (2010) for the shape factor of each condition (Fig.4.11.)
Q in 10 bar
Q in 10 bar
(1). Condition of well a.
(2). Condition of well b.
Q in 10 bar
2R
2R
Q in 10 bar
2R
(3). Condition of well b.
2R
(4). Condition of well c.
Fig. 4.11. Schematic of condition of well and packers location.
To compute the value of Shape Factor, Sunjoto (2010) proposed formula for
three conditions of well as:
Condition of (a) well Fig. 4.11.(a):

=
( + 2) 2
+ + 1

(4.56)
65
Condition of well (b) Fig. 4.11.(b):

=
(4.57)
( + 2 ) 2
+ + 1

Condition of well (c) Fig. 4.11.(c):

2
=
( + 2) 2

+ + 1
(4.58)
The coefficient of a,b,c,d,e and f must be definite by pumping test.

3). Special case of confined aquifer
According to Murthy (1977), figure below shows 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 (hw > D)
Case 2: The water level in the test well might fall below the roof level (hw < D)
Case 2
Case 1
h1
D
hw
rw
r1
r
Ri

66
Case 1: (hw > D)

=
=
(4.59)

( )
(4.60)
This equation is like mention above.

Case 2: (hw < D)
=
=
( )
(4.61)
( )
(4.62)
4. Correction to flow line

Real curve
H
h
h+h
Theoretic curve

a. Castany (1967) implemented Dupuit (1868) equation:
For the lateral flow:
=
2 ( + )2
2
67
( ) = [ ( )]
For the free aquifer and parallel flow:

=
2 ( + )2
( ) = [ ( )]
(4.63)
(4.64)
b. Ehrenberger (1928)
( )
= ,
a. Vodgeo Institut (1954)
= , ( ),
(4.65)
(4.66)
b. Iokutaro Kano (1939)
0,324 < C < 1,60
(4.67)
c. Vibert (1949)
= , +
(4.68)
5. Radius of depletion
According to many researchers, the radius of depletion depends on the depression
cone because the drawdown of pumping:
68
a. W.Sichardt (in Castany, 1967)

= ( )
where,
(4.69)
Ri
: radius of depletion (m)
H h : drawdown (m)
K
: permeability (m/s)
b. H.Cambefort (in Castany, 1967)

=
where,
Ri
H
Ki
(4.70)
: radius of depletion (m)

: drawdown (m)
c. I. Choultse (in Castany, 1967)

=
me
T
H
K
Ri
porosity of soil
duration of pumping (s or h)
drawdown (m)
permeability (m/s or m/h)
radius of depletion (m)
where,
:
:
:
:
:
(4.71)
69
d. I.P. Koussakine (in Castany, 1967)

=
where,
K
T
(4.72)
: duration of pumping (hour)
e. Dupuit
1). Lateral flow :

1). Dupuit (in Castany, 1967)
(4.73)
(4.74)
2). Castany (1967)
2). Radial flow (in Castany, 1967):

Using Darcys Law, Castany (1967) proposed an equation:
=
+
( 2 2 )
( )
+
Sunjoto tried to improve above formula as:
( )
=
= .
( )
(4.75)
(4.76)
70
where,
Ri
r
Q
H
K
h
:
:
:
:
:
:
radius of depletion (m)

radius of observation well location (m)
discharge (m3/h)
drawdown (m)
permeability (m/h)
height of water on observation well (m)
f. Some authors (in Castany, 1967)

=
where,
Ri
Q
I
(4.77)
: radius of influence (L)

: rate of pumping (L/T3)
: precipitation intensity (debit/L2/T)
g. Kozen (in Bogomolov et Silin-Bektchoutine (1955)
(4.78)
71
h. G.V. Bogomolov (in Castany, 1967)

Table 4.3. Coefficient of permeability and Radius of depletion
Aquifer material
Granulometric
Coefficient of
Well
fraction
Permeability
discharge
(mm)
(m/day)
(m3/hour)
Clay sand
0,01-0,05
0,500-1,000
0,100-0,300
Fine sand
0,01-0,05
1,500-5,000
0,200-0,400
Clay sand in small
0,10-0,25
10,00-15,00
0,500-0,800
grains
Sand in small grains
0,10-0,25
20,00-25,00
0,800-1,700
Clay sand in medium
0,25-0,50
20,00-25,00
1,600-10,00
grains
Sand in medium grains
0,25-0,50
35,00-50,00
15,00-20,00
Clay sand in big grains
0,50-1,00
35,00-40,00
20,00-25,00
Sand in big grains
0,50-1,00
60,00-75,00
40,00-50,00
Gravels
100,0-125,0
75,00-100,0
Radius of
Depletion
(m)
65
65
75
75
100
100
100
125
150
Note: drawdown 5-6 meter
72
V. FRESH AND SALINE WATER BALANCE

1. Basic equation
Badon Ghyben (1888) and Herzberg (1901),
precipitation
ground surface
h
groundwater surface
sea level
hf
fresh water
hs
boundary area of saline

water and fresh water
saline water
Fig. 5.1. Schematic of cross section circular homogenous, isotropic and porous island.
Normal condition:
Sea water
(5.1)
s = 1.025 tmass/m 3 = 1,025 kgmass /m
} so:
Fresh water f = 1.00 tmass /m3 = 1,000 kgmass /m
73
2. Shape of the Fresh-Salt Water interface
Ground surface
Water table
xo
Sea
zo
Fresh water
Saline water
Interface
Fig. 5.2. Flow pattern of fresh water in an unconfined coastal aquifer
The exact shape of the interface is (Glover in Todd, 1927):

2 =
2
2
+
(5.2)
2 12
( + )
(5.3)
The corresponding shape for the water table is given by:
The width xo of the submarine zone through which fresh water discharges
into the sea can be obtained for z=0,
=
(5.4)
74
The depth of the interface beneath the shoreline zo, occurs where x = 0 so
that:
(5.5)
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.
75
Fig. 5.3. Diagram of upconing of underlying saline water to a pumping well (after
Schmorak and Mercado ini Todd, 1980)
According to Todd (1980) using Dupuit assumption and Ghyben-Herzberg relation, the
upconing is:
=
Comment:
()
(5.6)
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:
=
Usually:
o Sea water
o Fresh water f
(5.7)
= 1,000 kgmass /m3 = 1.00 tmass/m 3
= 1,000 kgmass /m3 = 1.00 tmass/m 3
And for the security take z/d < 0.50
76
4. Drawdown versus Built up

a. Theory of Dupuit-Thiem
pump axis level
gs
gwl
( + )
h
Drawdown due to
pumping
h1
r1
r2
Fig.5.4. Schematic of pumping
Discharge (Dupuit-Thiem) base on Darcys Law:
(5.8)
Problem: Solution of this equation needed minimum two dependent unknown (h 2 & r2)
so this formula is difficult for predicting computation.
where,
P : power (kN.m/s = kW)
Q : discharge (m3/s)
: specific weight of water
(9.81 kN/m3)
H : gap of groundwater level to pump axis (m)
S : drawdown (m)
: pump efficiency
K : coefficient of permeability (m/s)
h1 : piezometric of observation well 1
h2 : piezometric of observation well 2
r1 : radius of observation well 1
r2 : radius of observation well 2
From the above legends and schematic (Fig. 6.3) so the Power:
( + )
(5.9)
77
b. Theory of Forhheimer (1930)
t1
h1
t2
h2
( )
2R
Fig.5.5. Theory of Forchheimer (1936)
According to Forchheimer (1930) discharge (Q) on the hole with casing is hydraulic
head (H) multiplied by coefficient of permeability (K) multiplied by shape factor (F),
and for the hole with casing F = 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:
( )
where,
K : coefficient of permeability
R : radius of hole
F : shape factor (F=4R)
h1 : depth of water in the beginning
h2 : depth of water in the end
t1 : time in the beginning
t2 : time in the end
(5.10)
78
c. Theory of Sunjoto (1988)

Q
H
Q/FK
K
Built up due to
recharging
T
Relationship between H an T
Fig.5.6. 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:
=
(5.11)
Sunjoto (1988) formula:

=
(5.12)
This formula (6.14) when duration T is infinite so the equation will become Q = FKH
(see Fig. 6.5)
79
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
=
b). Unsteady flow condition

=
(5.13)
(negative sign means that the direction is opposite and in this case downward)
where,
S
H
Q
F
K
T
R
(5.14)
: drawdown (m)
: depth of water on the hole/well (m)
: discharge through the well (m3/s)
: shape factor (m)
: coefficient of permeability (m/s)
: duration of flow (s)
: radius of pipe/well (m)
80
EXAMPLE:
Pumping system with discharge Q = 0.1667 m3/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/m3 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.
Q=0.1667 m3/s
+1.5
6.50 m
5.00 m
-5.00
S
23.00 m
18.00 m
-28.00
K=4.70*10
-4
Fig.5.7. Pumping data
Shape factor installed:

=
2 18 + 2 0.225 2
2
18
18 + 2 0.225
+
+ 1

2 0.225
2 0.225
= 25.95
81
The drawdown of 1 pump installed:

=
0.1667
= 13.667
25.95 0.00047
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
= 136,40
1,025 1,000
1,000
Power needed:
P = 0.1667 m3/s x 9.81 kN/m3 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 Fd should be
increased by enlarging the diameter of well or/and adding the length of porous well.
82
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/m3. 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:
Vp = 72,000 m 2 x 0.60 m = 43,200 m 3
Daily seawater volume needed:
Vn = 33 % x 43,200 m3 = 14,400 m 3
Daily seawater discharge needed:
Qn = 14,400/24/3,600 = 0.1667 m 3/s 10 m 3/mnt
Power needed (without drawdown occurs):
Pn = Q H / kNm/s
Pn = 0.1667 m3/s x 10.552 kN/m 3x 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).
=
(5.15)
(5.16)
(5.17)
Pumping power is discharge multiplied by specific weight of water multiplied by

hydraulic head divided by efficiency of pump system.
According to Sunjoto (2008), when drawdown of pumping is equal to hydraulic head

the equation becomes:
83
where,
Q : discharge (m3/s)
F : shape factor of well (m)
K : coefficient of permeability (m/s)
H : hydraulic head of pumping (m)
P : power (kN.m/s)
: specific weight of water (kN/m3)
: 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 upconing
and it will get get saline water discharge, In this case the drawdown was decided
equal to hydraulic gradient and shape factor needed can be computed by (5.17):
0,16672 1.025
=
= 47,29
0,60 2.135,85 0,00047
a. 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):
F=2R
(5.18)
where,
F : shape fator of pipe (m)
R : radius of pipe (m)
Computed by (5), the installed shape factor for the 4 pipes is (5.18):
Fi = 4 x 2 x x 0,10 = 2,51 m
This system was not installed the pump due to the current of the sea is big
enough to destroy the lied pipes.
84
4 0,20 m
Indian Ocean
Fig.5.8. Lying pipes
b. 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 (5.18):
Fi = 2 x 2 x x 0,30 = 3,77 m
This system was installed 2 pumps of 1x3.00 KW and 1x4.00 KW
Indian Ocean
6.00
Fig.5.9. Cubical Water Intake
c. 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 (5.18):
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
85
Indian Ocean
60 m
Fig.5.10. Deep Well
d. 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
+ + 1

2
2
(5.19)
where,
F : shape factor of pipe (m)
R : radius of pipe (m)
L : porous length (m)
So shape factor (5.19):

2 6 + 2 0,15 2
=
= 10,326
2
6
6 + 2 0,15
+
+ 1

2 0,15
2 0,15
This system was installed 1 pumps of 1x3.00 KW
86
Indian Ocean
6,00
Fig.5.11. 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 + Q2 + Q3 + Q 4
Q = 0 + (0,18 + 0,27) + (1,80 + 1,80) + 0,18 = 4,23 m3/mnt
Design discharge was 10 m3/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
(5.20)
87
= 46 6 = 24 , = 3,77
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 (5.20):

= 4 = 47,29 = 11,83 12
To provide the discharge of the project 10 m3/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

To provide the discharge of the project 10 m3/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
2
16
16 + 2 0,225
+
+ 1
2 0,225
2 0,225
= 2 23,726 = 47,452
To provide the discharge demand of the project 10 m3/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
To provide the discharge of the project 10 m3/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.
88
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.5.12)
13.00
Indian Ocean
10 cm
3.0
4.00
Fig.5.12. Horizontal perforated pipes
1). Shape factor of concrete cylinder is (6.21):

F1 = 2 x x 1,50 = 9,42 m
89
2). Shape factor of perforated pipes is (6.22):

2 = 5
2 4 + 2 0,05 2
4
4 + 2 0,05
+
+ 1
2 0,05
2 0,05
= 5 5,769 = 28,845
Total shape factor of concrete cylinder and horizontal perforated pipes is:
F = F1 + F2 = 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.
e. 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 5.13. Cross section of horizontal perforated pipes
90
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:

a. Mikel & Klaers Methode (1956)
=
(6.24)
where,
Q
n
L
W
: discharge (m 3/s)
: number of pipe
: length of pipe (m)
: flow velocity (m/s)
3
= = = 103 = 0.001
3
Discharge of 8 pore pipes:
= 8 42 0,001 = 0.402285 3
b. Spiridonoff & Hantushs Method (1964)
=
where,
Q
Sv
Af
h
D
: discharge (m 3/s)
: specific yield aquifer of sand and gravel (Sv = 20 %)
: total area of pore hole of each pipe (m2)
: distance between axis of pipe to groundwater level (m)
: diameter of pipe (m)
(6.25)
91
Total area of pore holes of each pipe:

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

Discharge of 8 pipes:
= 8 0.20 0.114557 3 = 0.549874 3
c. Nasjonos Method (2002)
.

= .

where,
Q
Af
K
L
D
h
l
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
(6.26)
discharge (m3/s)
total area of pore hole of each pipe (m2)
coefficient of permeability (m/s)
length of pipe (m)
diameter of pipe (m)
distance between axis of pipe to groundwater level (m)
distance of flow (m)
Discharge of 8 pore pipes:

0.114557 3 0.2366
= 148.41

103 32 0.30 = 0.102159 3
4 0.3
3
d. Das, Saha, Rao dan Uththmanthans Method (2009)
The assumption of pores clogging is 50%

The assumption Af is 20% the surface area of pipe
= %
(6.27)
92
where,
Q
L
D
Af
V
:
:
:
:
:
discharge (m3/s)
length of pipe (m)
total area of pore hole of each pipe (m2) = 20 % area of pipe
flow velocity in the pipe (m/s) V = 0.50 cm/s=0.005 m/s
Discharge of 8 pipes:
= 8 ( 4 0.30 20%) 50% 0.005 = 0.150857 3
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:
where,
Q
F
K
H
R
T
(6.28)
: discharge (m 3/s)
: shape factor of pipe or well (m) Table 8.1.
: hydraulic head (m)
: radius of well or pipe (m)
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:
93
1). Discharge through 8 pipes when base and wall of well are impermeable:
Shape factor for 8 pipe pores is (Sunjoto, 2002):
6 =
6 =
2 + 22
(6.29)
+ 2 2
+ + 1

2
2
2 32 + 2 0.15 2
32
32 + 2 0,15
+
+ 1
2 0,15
2 0,15
= 37.58047
Discharge through 8 pipes:
1 = = 37.58047 103 3 = 0.112743 3

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 103 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
+ + 1

2
2
2 4 + 2 0.15 2
4+22 4
+
+ 1
22
22
= 20.99929 3
94
Discharge through the perimeter of well:
= = = 20.99929 103 3 = 0.062999 3

Total discharge 1). + 3). is:
3 = (0.112474 + 0.062999 ) = 0.175426 3
f. Sriyonos Method (2011)
Sriyono developed the formulas for the 1, 2 and 3 only number of horizontal pipes by
hydraulic modeling research as follows:
For number of pipe n = 1:
. .427
= 54.600
. .
= 80.354
. .385
. .
. .354
= 103.936
. .
where,
Q
Af
K
L
D
h
l
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
(6.30)
(6.30)
(6.30)
discharge (m3/s)
total area of pore hole of each pipe (m2)
length of pipe (m)
distance between axis of pipe to groundwater level (m)
distance of flow (m)
95
Table 5.1. Comparison of the result

No.
Method
1
Mikel & Klaer (1956)
Spiridonoff & Hantush (1964)
Nasjono (2002)
4
5
Das, Saha, Rao & Uththmanthan

(2009)
Sunjoto (1988; 2002)
Sriyono
Discharges (m 3/s)
0.402285
0.549874
0.102159
0.150857
1)
1 = 0.112474
n=1
2)
2 = 0.150441
n=2
3)
3 = 0.175426
0.01290
0.02094
0.02898
n=3
96
VI. 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
(6.1)
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. 6.1. becomes:
=
. +
+
. ! . !
. !
(6.2)
where,
2
=
4
(6.3)
The storage coefficient is

=
4
2
(6.4)
The exponential integral W(u) = -Ei(-u) can be represented by the series below and
the values is tabulated in Table 6.1.
97
() = . +
. ! . !
. !
(6.5)
Table 6.1. Values of W(u) for Values of u

u
1.0
0.219
2.0
0.049
3.0
0.013
4.0
0.0038
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
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
0.0011 0.00036 0.00012 0.000038 0.000012
Example:
Pumping in confined aquifer, with full penetration and a discharge 2500 m3/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 6.2.:
98
Table 6.2. Pumping test data
t
(min)
0
1
1,5
2
2,5
3
4
5
6
s
(m)
0
0,20
0,27
0,30
0,34
0,37
0,41
0,45
0,48
r2/t
m2/min
3600
2400
1800
1440
1200
900
720
600
t
(min)
8
10
12
14
18
24
30
40
50
s
(m)
0,53
0,57
0,60
0,63
0,67
0,72
0,76
0,81
0,85
r2/t
m2/min
450
360
300
257
200
150
120
90
72
t
(min)
60
80
100
120
150
180
210
240
-
s
(m)
0,90
0,93
0,96
1,00
1,04
1,07
1,10
1,12
r2/t
m2/min
60
45
36
30
24
20
17
15
-
Solution:
Values of s and r2/t are plotted on logarithmic paper and values of W(u) and u from
Table. 6.1. 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. 6.1.
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 m3/min = 216,000 m3/d. Thus, from equation:
=
=
2500 (1.00)
( ) =
= 1110 2
4 (0.18)
4
4 4(1110)(1 x 102 )
=
= 0.000206
216,000
2
99
Fig. 6.1. 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.
100
Cooper-Jacob noted that for small value of r and large value of t, u is small so that
the series terms of Theis formula become negligible after the first two terms then
the drawdown can be expressed by the asymptote:
2
=
0.5772
4
4
Rewriting and changing to decimal logarithms, this reduce to:

=
2.30
2.25
2
4

(6.6)
(6.7)
Therefore, a plot of drawdown s versus the logarithms of t shows a straight line.

Projecting this line to s = 0, where t = to (Fig. 6.2)
0=
2.30
2.25
4
2
(6.8)
Fig. 6.2. Cooper-Jacob method for solution of the non equilibrium equation
and it follows:
2.25
=1
2
(6.9)
101
resulting in:
=
2.25
2
(6.10)
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 6.2, s and t plotted on semilogathmic paper, as shown in
Fig. 6.2. A straight line is fitted through the points, and s = 0.40 m and to = 0.39
min = 2.70 .10-4 day are read.
Then,
=
2.30 2.30(2500)
=
= 1090 2
4 (0.40)
4
and,
2.25 2.25(1090)(2.70 . 104 )
=
=
(60)2
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
semilogarithmic paper in the same manner as for the Cooper-Jacob method. On the
plotted curve, choose an arbitrary point and note the coordinates , t and s. Next, draw
102
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:
or,
= ( )
( )
=
2.30
(6.11)
(6.12)
and find corresponding values of W(u) and u from Fig. 6.3. and finally compute the
formation constants T , s and r2/t of Theis equation.
Fig. 6.3. Relation among F(u), W(u) and u (After Chow 1952, in Todd, 1980)
EXAMPLE:
In Fig. 6.4. data are plotted from Table 6.2. and point A is selected on the curve
where t = 6 min = 4.20 .10-3 day and s = 0.47 m. A tangent is constructed as shown;
the drawdown difference per log cycle of time is s = 3.80 m. Then F(u) = 0.47/0.38
= 1.24, and from Fig. 6.4. W(u) = 2.75 and u = 0.038.
103
Hence,
=
2500 (2.75)
( ) =
= 1160 2
4 (0.47)
4
4 4(1160)(4.2 x 103 )(0.038)

= 2 =
= 0.000206
(60)2
Fig. 6.4. 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. 6.5). 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.
104
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. 6.5. Drawdown and recovery curves in an observation well near pumping well
Using Theis principle that the residual drawdown s can be given as,
=
where,
[ ( ) ()]
4
2
=
4
2
=
4
(6.13)
(6.14)
105
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:
.
(6.15)
And the transmissivity becomes:

=
2.30
4
(6.16)
EXAMPLE:
A well pumping at an uniform rate 2500 m3/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. 6.3, and then plotted versus s on semilogarithmic paper
(Fig. 6.6 ). A straight line is fitted through the points ands = 0.40 m is determined,
then:
=
2.30 2.30(2500)
=
= 1140 3
4 (0.40)
4
Fig. 6.6. Recovery test method for solution of the non equilibrium equation
106
Table 6.3. Recovery test data, pump shut down at 240 min (after Todd, 1980)
4.
a.
t (min)
t (min)
t/t
S (m)
241
241
0.89
242
121
0.81
243
81
0.76
245
49
0.68
247
35
0.64
10
250
25
0.56
15
255
17
0.49
20
260
13
0.55
30
270
0.38
40
280
0.34
60
300
0.28
80
320
0.24
100
340
3.4
0.21
140
380
2,7
0.17
180
420
2.3
0.14
Glover (1966)
General formulation
The flow Q through a unit width and the height h at the distance x from the origin is:
=
The continuity condition is:
(6.17)
By substitution and arrangement
107
If, as an approximation the quantity

=
replaced by
and
the above relation reduce to
2
=
2
(6.18)
(6.19)
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
+ 2 =
2
In radial symmetrical cases, the differential equation takes for

(6.20)
2 1
+
=
The Laplace formulation with the condition that the flow into the element of volume
must equal the flow out of it, is
Or
2
2
2
2 + 2 + 2 = 0
(6.21)
2 2 2
+
+
=0
2 2 2
(6.22)
2 1 2
+
+
=0
2 2
(6.23)
If the flow is radial symmetrical this continuity equation takes the form
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
108
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
A solution which satisfies the continuity requirement and the conditions
(6.24)
s = 0 when t = 0 for r>1

s0 when r
is:
:
:
:
:
:
where:
Q
k
D
t
s
(6.25)
discharge of pumping (ft 3/s)

coefficient of permeability (ft/s)
thickness of aquifer (ft)
duration of flow (s)
drawdown (ft)
Above equation (6.25) 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
1
2

=
4t
2
Value of
(6.26)
can be obtained from the Table 6.4. (Glover, 1966) or they can
be computed from the series
109

2
4
6
= 0,288608 +
+
2 2! 4 3! 6
( 6.27)
When used for finding values to use in equation, (6.25) =
. This integral can also

1
be evaluated by use of the tabulated exponential integral as
previously.
4t
as noted
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 (r1 = rw)
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 (s1), 50 ft (s50) dan 100 ft (s100):
110
s50
h1
50
h50
h100
D=70 ft
100
Fig.6.7. Sketch of data condition of pumping

Solution:
Conversion from galon/mnt to ft3/s is:
=
=
t
500
3
= 1,1141
448,8
0,002 70
2
=
= 0,70
0,20
= 72 x 3600 = 259200 s
so:
1,1141
1,1141
=
=
= 1,2665
2 2 0,002 70 0,87965
4 t = 4 0,70 259200 = 725760 = 851,90

1
4
50
=
=
1
= 0,00174
851,9
50
= 0,0587
851,9
111
100
100
= 0,1174
851,9
From Table 6.4. Can be found value of,
=
4
The value of X is:
= 1
= 50
= 100
= 0,00174 . 1 = 6,5328
50
4
100
= 0,0587 . 50 = 2,5484
= 0,1174 . 100 = 1,8611
The value of drawdown in distance r from the well is:

=
So the drawdown in distance from the well r is:
1 = 1
50 = 50
100 = 100
= 1,2665 (6,5328) = 8,27 1 = 61,73
50 = 1,2665 (2,5484) = 3,23 50 = 66,77
100 = 1,2665 (1,8611) = 2,36 100 = 67,74
The verification is carried out based on the dept of water on r1 is h1 = 61,73 ft as

known value, using Dupuit-Thiem formula Equation (7.32) will be computed r50 and r100
as follows:
Drawdown in r 50 = 50 ft:
2
2
0.002 (50
0.002(50
12 )
61,732 )
=
1,1141
=
50 = 67,11
501
501
s50 = 70 67,11 = 2,89 ft
112
Drawdown in r100 = 100 ft:

=
2
2
0.002 (100
0.002(100
12 )
61,732 )
1,1141
=
100 = 68,02
1001
1001
s100 = 70 68,02 = 1,98 ft
113
Table 6.3. Value of integral =
for given values of parameters =

Continued
114

Continued
115

Continued
116

Continued
117
5. Sunjoto
Sunjoto developed his unsteady flow condition method based on the steady flow
condition theory of Forchheimer (1930). In this case, Glover (1966) was 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

(6.28)
Shape factor of the tip of well of the unconfined aquifer is:

=
where:
F
R
L
D
:
:
:
:
( + 2) 2
+ + 1

(6.29)
shape factor of well (L)

radius of well (L)
length of porous casing (L)
thickness of the aquifer (L)
This computation needs trial and error or iteration by computer by taking some value
of drawdown (s1), then you get (h1) and compute the value of shape factor (F) 0f well.
Then compute drawdown using Sunjoto (1988) formula based of the recharge well
with H is built up as:
118
(6.30)
Based on the the above formula can be used the pumping well formula with drawdown
(s1) as drawdown as:
where:
H
s
Q
F
K
T
R
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
(6.31)
built up (L)
drawdown (L)
recharge or discharge (L3/T)
shape factor of well (L)
coeffisient of permeability (L/T)
duration of flow (T)
radius of well (L)
Then compute the value of drawdown in the distance r 2 as unknown with data of r1
using Dupuit-Thiem theory as follows:
=
(12 22 )
12
(6.32)
Example:
With the data above it can be compute as follows:
1). First step
Take some value of drawdown, for instantce (s1)= 6 ft so L = 70-6 = 64 ft
=
2 64
(64 + 2 1) 64 2
+ + 1

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

=
1,1141
82,6135 0,002 259200
1
= 6,74
82,6135 0,002
12
So height of water in r1 is h1 = 70 6,74 = 63, 36 ft
119
2). Second step

Take value of drawdown (s1) = 6,50 ft so L = 70-6,50 = 63,50 ft and compute shape
factor as follows:
=
2 63,5
(63,5 + 2 1) 63,5 2
+
+ 1

1
1
= 82,0983
Subtitute above shape factor F to Equation (7.31):

=
1,1141
82,0983 0,002 259200
1
= 6,78
82,0983 0,002
12
So height of water in r1 is h1 = 70 6,78 = 63,22 ft

3). Third step
factor as follows:
=
2 63,2
(63,2 + 2 1) 63,2 2
+
+ 1

1
1
= 81,7889
Subtitute F to Equation (7.31):

=
1,1141
81,7889 0,002 259200
1
= 6,81
81,7889 0,002
12
So height of water in r1 is h1 = 70 6,81 = 63,19 ft

4). Fourth step
factor as follows:
=
2 63,19
(63,19 + 2 1) 63,19 2
+
+ 1

1
1
= 81,7856
Subtitute F to Equation (7.31):
120
1,1141
81,7856 0,002 259200
1
= 6,81
81,7856 0,002
12
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 r100 using Equation
(6.32) as follows:
Drawdown in r = 50 ft:
2
2
0.002 (50
0.002(50
12 )
63,192 )
=
1,1141 =
50 = 68,46
501
501
Drawdown s50 = 70 68,46 = 1,54 ft
Drawdown in r = 100 ft:

=
2
2
0.002 (100
0.002(100
12 )
63,192 )
1,1141
=
100 = 69,35
1001
1001
Drawdown s100 = 70 69,35 =0,65 ft
Based on the same data the drawdown using Sunjotos method are:
r1
r 50
r100
=
=
=
1 ft -->
50 ft -->
100 ft -->
s1
s50
s100
=
=
70 - 68,80
70 - 69,70
=
=
=
6,81 ft
1,54 ft
0,65 ft
Table 6.4 Recapitulation of drawdown values of Glovers and Sunjotos method.
Drawdown
(s)
Radius (r)
Glover (ft )
Computed by
Computed by DupuitGlover Method
Thiem Method
8,27 )*
8, 27 )*
3,23 )*
2,89 )**
2,36 )*
1,98 )**
1 ft
50 ft
100 ft
Note:
)* computed by Glovers method.
)** computed by Dupuit-Thiem method.
)*** computed by Sunjotos method.
Sunjoto
(ft)
6, 81 )***
1, 54 )**
0,65 )**
121
VII. DISCHARGE AND 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
=
(7.1)
Filled material well

=
H
H
F
K
T
R
Q
C
I
A
n
depth of hollow well (L)

depth of filled material well (L)
shape factor (L)
dominant duration of precipitation (T)
radius of well (L)
inflow discharge (L3/T), dan Q = C I A
runoff coefficient of roof ( )
roof area (L2)
porosity of filled material ( )
where:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
(7.2)
122
Formula Development of Shape Factors

a. Ellipse
Basic equation of ellipse (LaRue et Risi, 1960. Mathmatiques Intermediaires):
2 2
+
=1
2 2
Theoreme:
2 = 2 + 2
(7.3)
x
ae
y
e : excentrisity of ellipse and e < 1

a and b positive
Fig. 1.1. Ellipse

b. Basic equation of radial flow
R
H
dh
H1
R0
Ho
dr
Fig. 7.2. Cross section of aquifer between two impermeable layers

Boundary condition:
Y = Ho
x = Ro
x=R
Y = H1
123
Darcys Law (1856)

= =
= = 2
2
=
(7.4)
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:
( ) =
( ) =
=
(7.5)
2
+ 1 +
2
2 ( )
2
+ 1 +
When t = L, a = R so:
=
+ +
(7.6)
124
Fig. 7.3. Cross section of aquifer under impermeable layer (Dachler, 1936)
d. Well condition 5b of Sunjoto (1989)

Assumption I:
Assumption II:
= + 2
a = Ro 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:
125
L=L+Rln2
b. Theoritic
a. Real
Fig. 7.4. Cross section of real and theoritic aquifer

1
2 + = 2 + 2
2
= ( + ) + +
Substitution:
=
=
(8.4)
2 ( + 2)
( + 2) + 2 + 2
2 ( + 2)
2
+ 2
+ 1 +

(8.7)
(7.7)
+
+ +

(7.8)
When R = 1, L = 0 and = + 2 so F5b = 3,964 R and this value approach
99% of F3b = 4R (Forchheimer, 1930)
126
Table 7.1. 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
Condition 5b
L+ R.ln2
Condition 6b
L+ R.ln2
Table 7.2. Assumption II between real and theorem condition on the tip of well
Description
Dachler (1936)
Sunjoto (1989; 2010)
Condition 1
a = Ro 4( L + R)
b = 2L
c=R
Condition 5b
a = Ro L
b=L
c=R
a = Ro 2( L + R)
b=L
c=R
Condition 6b
a = Ro L
b=L
c=R
a = Ro ( L + R)
b=L
c=R
127
Table 7.3. Flowchart of formula derivation

No
Condition
Shape Factor
Reverences
3b
Forchheimer
(1930)
Dachler (1936)
Aravin (1965)
3 = 4
=
5b
5 =
2 + 22
+ 2 2
+ + 1
4 = 5.50
4b
=
=
6b
6 =
4,000
+ +
F
when
L=0

+ +
2 + 22
+ 2 2

+ + 1
2
2
Dachler (1936)
0/0
Sunjoto (2002)
3,964
Harza (1935)
Taylor (1948)
Hvorslev
(1951)
Sunjoto (2002)
5,50
3
6,283
4
5
Dachler (1936)
0/0
Sunjoto (2002)
6,283
Note: The flowchart of thinking
Formula F3b was derived mathematically like F 2a and F3a.
Based on F3b, be derived the first F5b then the second F6b finally the third F4b.
128
2. Trench
When the groundwater surface high so the efficiency of recharge well will be
decrese. The structure mus be developed horizontally and it is called Recharge
Trench. The design is to compute the length (B) of trench with know width (b)
and depth (H).
Qi = Q
dh
dt
T
H h2
t2
t
h
h1
t1
B
Y
X
Qo=FK
b
Fig. 7.5.. Sketch of water balance on the trench
Volume of storage of trench is the difference of input flow and water to
infiltrate on the trench.
=
= ( 0 ) = ( )
129
where,
Qo
Q
As
h
t
F
K
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
outflow discharge
inflow discharge
cross section area of casing
depth of water
duration of flow
shape factor of casing
The above equation is solved by integration :

= ( )
Finally the result are::
1). Hollow trench (Sunjoto, 2008)

=
2). Material filled trench (Sunjoto, 2008)
where,
B
B
b
f
K
H
T
Q
C
I
A
n
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
(. )
(. )
length of trench (L)

length of trench material filled (L)
width of trench (L)
shape factor of trench (L) Tabel 28.
depth of water on trench (L)
dominant duration of precipitation (T)
inflow discharge (L3/T) and Q = CIA
runoff coefficient of roof (-)
area of roof (L2)
porosity of material filled
130
Shape factor of trench (f) is developed from well shapoe factor as follows
(Sunjoto, 2008):
(a). Shape factor of trench is well shape factor multiplied by shape
coefficient (SC).
(b). Shape coefficient is perimeter coefficient multiplied by area coefficient
(c). Perimeter coefficient circular form to square form is perimeter of square
(4b) divided by perimeter of circle (2R) or equal to 4b / (2R ) .
(d). Area coefficient from square form to rectangular form is root of the
rectangular area devided by square area or equal to ( (bB ) / b 2 ).
(e). Finally value of shape coefficient (SC) from circle form to the rectangular
form is equal to: 4 (2 ) (. ) 2 = 2. ( )
=
.
.
=
where:
fi : trench shape factor in i condition of tip of trench
Fi : well shape factor in i condition of tip of well
(. )
131
Tabel 28. Shape factor of trenches (Sunjoto, 2008)

N
Condition
o
Shape factor of trenchs (f)
2
b
+

+
+
3
b
=
b
4
b
=
=
5
b
L
b
L
+
+
+
+
+
+
132
b
L
7
b
+
+
+

+
+
+

+
+
3. Dewatering
a. Pump
The power of pump required can be calculated using the formula as follows:
P=
where,
Q
P
H
QH
:
:
:
:
(7.12)
discharge (m3/s)
power of pump (kg m/s)
hydraulic head (m)
unit weight of water (1000 kg/m3)
: efficiency of pump
b. Water losses
The following is an example of a building site where the digging dimension is
100 x 100 m2, the lowering of elevation of unconfined aquifer surface is 8 m (from 3.00 m to -11.00 m), the coefficient of soil permeability is 5,10-5 m/s and the duration
of continuous pumping is 7 months, that is the time used to construct the lower parts
of a building. This duration consists of 1-month continuous pumping in unsteady flow
condition and 6-month continuous pumping in steady flow condition. For pumping in the
133
well when the flow is in a steady flow condition can be calculated using the formula as
follows (Forchheimer, 1930):
Q = FKH
(7.13)
where,
Q
: discharge (m3/s)
F
: shape factor of well (m)
K
H
: depth of water (m)
Hvorslev (1951) had developed the following shape factor of well formula with
R is radius of well, K is coefficient of soil permeability and Kv is vertical coefficient
of soil permeability as well as h length of under part casing and well laid on porous
layer:
F=
5.5 R
11 h K
1+
R Kv
(7.14)
According to Hvorslev (1951) the value 5.5 R is average amount from the three
researchers were Harza (1935), Taylor (1948) and Hvorslev (1951). On analytical
study, Sunjoto (2002) found that value is 2 R and Eq. (4) becomes:
F=
where,
F
R
h
K
Kv
2R
11 h K
1+
R Kv
:
:
:
:
:
(7.15)
shape factor of well (m)

radius of well (m)
depth of sheet pile (m)
vertical coefficient of permeability (m/s)
134
By analogy with the Eq. (5), the shape factor of rectangular cross section hole
of dewatering with sheet pile as deep as h below the digging area and assuming that
the soil is homogenous and isotropic (K = Kv), a proposed equation for rectangular
form can be formulated as follows:
f =
where,
f
h
B
b
K
4 bB
h
11
1+
bB
:
:
:
:
:
(7.16)
shape factor of rectangle (m)

depth of sheet pile (m)
length (m)
width (m)
Base on the principle of Forchheimer (1930), Sunjoto (1988) developed a

formula of pumping or recharging on the well in unsteady flow condition with equation
as follows:
H=
Q
FKT
1 exp
FK
R 2
(7.17)
where,
H
: depth of water on well (m)
F
: shape factor of well (m)
K
T
R
: radius of well (m)
Q
: discharge (m3/s), Q = CIA
C
: runoff coefficient
I
: precipitation intencity (m/s)
A
: area of roof (m2)
For the pumping in dewatering area with rectangular cross section can be found
by modifying the circle area R2 into a square area bB, the shape factor of circle or
135
well (F) becomes the shape factor of rectangle (f), therefore, the equation (7.77) can
be changed into:
Q=
fKH
fKT
1 exp
bB
(7.18)
where:
Q
: pumping discharge (m3/s)
B
: length (m)
b
: width (m)
f
: shape factor of rectangular (m)
K
T
: duration of pumping (s)
H
: hydraulic head (m)
c. Computation
With K = Kv = 5,10-5 m/s, B = b = 100 m, H = 8 m, h = 8 m and the sketch as of
Fig. 1, the discharge, water losses, power of pump can be calculated using the above
formulas as follows:
1). Influence of drawdown
With the drawdown is 8 m and the coefficient of soil permeability is 5.10-5 m/s,
the radius of influence by substituting to Eq. (1) is as follows:
L = 3000 x 8 x 5,10 5 = 170 m
In this case the water table will lower, starting from the biggest drawdown at
the edge of the digging area or sheet pile as far as 170 m, around the digging area.
2). Shape factor
By using the proposed equation Eq. (6), value of shape factor can be calculated:
f =
4 100 100
= 312.472 m
11
8
1+
100 100
3). Unsteady flow pumping

136
Unsteady flow pumping is a pumping to lower the water table from elevation of
-3.00 to -11.00 or hydraulic head H = 8 m. The discharge in unsteady flow condition
within the planned time of one month can be calculated using Eq. (8):
Q=
312.472 5,105 8
= 0.1272 m3/s
312.472 5,10 5 3,600 24 30
1 exp
100 100
4). Steady flow pumping

Steady flow pumping is a pumping to maintain water surface after the elevation
has reached -11.00 m or the hydraulic head H = 11 m. The pumping duration is 6
months according to the carrying out basement construction duration and using Eq.
(3), the discharge is:
Q
312.472 x 5,10-5 x 11 = 0.1719 m 3/s
5). Volume of water losses

During the underground construction, the volume of water losses (V) is:
a) Volume of water losses in one-month pumping:
Vuf = 30 x 24 x 3,600 x 0.1272 = 458,164 m 3
b) Volume of water losses in six-month pumping:
Vsf = 180 x 24 x 3,600 x 0.1719 = 2,673,389 m 3
Thus, total volume of water losses during construction with dewatering is:
V = Vuf + Vsf = 458,164 + 1,944,000 = 3,131,553 m3
The number is resulted from the pumping volume of the one-month unsteady
flow condition added with the volume of six-month of steady flow condition. The
number, however, does not calculate water addition caused by rain, which might fall,
during the construction period.
6). Equivalence with domestic water consumption
When compared with the domestic water consumption of average of Indonesian
people consuming 100 l/day/cpt, the volume of water losses equals with:
137
Number of people = (3,131,553 /7/30/0,100) = 149,121 cpt

Thus, the water losses caused by dewatering equals to the domestic water
consumption for 149,121 people for 7 months.
7). Pump capacity in unsteady flow condition
The running pump capacity required can be calculated using Eq. (2) where Q =
0.1272 m3/s and H = 11 m that is, from -11.00 to + 0.00 m and pump efficiency = 0.60
:
P=
0.1272 1000 11
= 2,332 kgm/s = 23.11 KW
0.60
8). Pump capacity in steady flow condition

The running pump capacity required can be calculated using Eq. (2) where Q =
0.1768 m3/s and H = 11 m, that is, from -11.00 to + 0.00 m.
P=
0.1719 1000 11
= 3,152 kgm/s = 31.26 KW
0.60
In the implementation, several pumps with the determined total capacity are placed
around the edge of the digging area near the sheet pile.
Ground surface: gs1 -0.00
Groundwater surface : gws1 -3.00
gs2 -10.00 m
-10.00
gws2 -11.00 m
h=8m
sheetpile
K
-18.00
B=b=100 m
Figure. 7.6. Sketch of dewatering site cross section (non scale).
138
REFERENCES
Chow, V.T. 1952. On the determination of transmissibility and storage coefficients from pumping test data ,
Chow, V.T. 1964. Handbook of Applied Hydrology. New York, McGraw Hill Book Co.
Cooper H.H,Jr. and Jacob C.E. 1946. A generalized graphical method for evaluating formations constants
and summarizing well-field history, Trans. Amer. Geophysical Union, v.27, pp. 526-534.
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
LinsleynR.K., M.A. Kohler J.I.H. Paulhus. 1975. Hydrology for Engineers. New York, McGraw Hill Book
Co.
Murthy V.N.S. 1977. Soil Mechanic and Foundation Engineering, Delhi (2nd ed.)
Porchet M., 1931. Hydrodinamique des puits. Ann. Du Genie Rural fasc.6
Todd, D.K. 1980. Groundwater Hydrology, John Wiley & Sons. Trans. Amer. Geophysical Union, v.33, pp.
397-404.
Theis C.V. 1935. He relation between the lowering of piezometric surface and the rate and duration of
discharge of well using groundwater storage, Trans. Amer. Geophysical Union, v.16, pp. 519-524
Sriyono E, 2011. Debit Aliran Air Tabah Melalui Pipa Berpori Sistem Sumur Kolektor Berjari, Jurnal Teknik
Universitas Jana Badra Yogyakarta, Vol. 1 No. 2, Oktober 2011
Suharyadi. 1984. Geohidrologi (Ilmu Air Tanah) Lecture none, Jurusan Teknik Geologi Fakultas Teknik
Universitas Gadjah Mada, Yogyakarta
UNESCO, 1967. 1967. Methods and Techniques of Groundwater Investigation and Development, Water
Resources Series No. 33, New York.
139

Aliran Air Tanah Ugm

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Aliran Air Tanah Ugm

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

GROUNDWATER FLOW

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

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

THE WATER CYCLE

Water storage in the atmosphere

Snowmelt runoff to stream

Fresh water storage

Water storage in oceans

Fig. 1.1. Hydrological cycle

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

Fig 1.2. Water balance on the ground surface

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

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

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

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

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

1.300 .104 Km3

Volume (103 km3)

Avererage depth (mm)

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

Greater water conservation

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

1. Many large-capacity site available

1. Few new site available

3. Require little land area

1. Water must be pumped

Minor flood control value

1. Water maybe available by gravity flow

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

Table 1.9. Attributes of Groundwater

(a). Surface inflow and outflow

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

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

c. Qanat, Karez, Foggara

d. Roman domestic water system.

Fig 1.10. Roman water coveyance and water distribution system

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

Fig 1.12. Roman aquaduct

g. Crush Bore Well (Cable tool)

Drilling cable - lifts tools, turns tools, controls tool motion.

Swivel socket - connects cable to tools, allows cable to unwind.

Drill stem - provides weight, steadies and guides bit.

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

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

h. Badon Gabon (1888) and Herzberg (1901)

canaux dcouverts et travers les terrains permables, Dupuit developed the

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

Groundwater in ice region

Groundwater in sand dunes

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

7. Dimension and Unit

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

g = 9.78 m.s-2 = 32.3 ft.s-2

1 cm2 = 0.1550 in2

= 0.2642 gal = 0.03531 ft3

= 264.2 gal = 35.31 ft3

= 8.106 .10-4 acre.ft

= 3.346 .10-4 ft H2O (4o C)

= 2.205 .10-3 lb (mass)

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

8). Flow rate

1 m3/s = 1.585 .104 gpm

14). Gravitational acceleration, g