Design of groundwater lowering systems 195

Figure 7.8 Pumping from a layered aquifer system using the underdrainage principle.

overlying more permeable layer. This allows the second pumping installa-
tion, screened in the underlying and less permeable stratum, to operate
without being overwhelmed by seepage from the overlying layer.

7.4 Estimation of steady-state discharge flow rate

Two key unknowns to be determined during design are the steady-state
discharge flow rate and the yield, number and design of wells necessary to
achieve that flow rate. Some commonly used methods to estimate discharge
flow rate are described in this section. Estimation of well yields is described
in Section 7.5.

7.4.1 Steady-state well and slot formulae

This section presents simple formulae that can be used to estimate the
steady-state discharge flow rate from systems treated as equivalent wells or
slots. The emphasis here is on simple methods, to be used when the con-
ceptual model indicates conditions not too different to the idealizations and
assumptions discussed below. For more complex cases, or where conditions
differ dramatically from the simple conditions discussed here, analysis by
numerical modelling may be appropriate (see Section 7.7).
196 Design of groundwater lowering systems

The simple formulae for radial flow to wells are generally based on the
work of Dupuit (1863), which used certain simplifications and assumptions
about the aquifer properties and geometry (Fig. 7.3).

The aquifer extends horizontally with uniform thickness in all direc-

tions without encountering intermediate recharge or barrier boundaries
within the radius of influence.

Darcy’s law is valid everywhere in the aquifer.

The aquifer is isotropic and homogeneous – thus the permeability is the
same at all locations and in all directions.

Water is released from storage instantly when the head is reduced.

The pumping well is frictionless and fully penetrates the aquifer.

The pumping well is very small in diameter compared to the radius of
influence, which is an infinite source of water forming a cylindrical
boundary to the aquifer at distance R0.

In reality, several of these assumptions are unlikely to be fully satisfied.

For example, soils are usually stratified and generally exhibit horizontal
permeabilities in excess of those in the vertical direction; often by more than
one order of magnitude. Similarly in rock the permeability may be domi-
nated by fissure flow and may vary greatly from point to point.
Dupuit made a further, important, assumption. This was that the ground-
water flow to the well was horizontal. This is a valid assumption for fully pen-
etrating wells in confined aquifers, but is invalid (at least close to the pumping
well) in unconfined aquifers or if the well is only partially penetrating.
Dupuit’s analysis was purely for the radial flow case, but Muskat (1935) did
analogous studies for plane flow to slots, using similar, idealized, assumptions.
Nevertheless, despite the idealizations and simplifications inherent in the
formula, experience has demonstrated that the Dupuit-based formulae can
be successfully used to estimate the steady-state pumping requirements for
relatively short-term dewatering purposes. These methods are used in the
design sections of Mansur and Kaufman (1962) and Powers (1992).
The empirical evidence that the Dupuit methods give reasonable estimates
of flow rate, is supported by a number of theoretical studies. Hantush (1964)
stated that ‘The Dupuit–Forcheimer well discharge formulae, despite the
shortcomings of some of the assumptions, predict the well discharges within
a high degree of accuracy commensurate with experimental errors’. The
assumptions have a more significant effect on the accuracy of the lowered
groundwater level profile around a well, but even then it is generally
accepted that the Dupuit approach can predict drawdowns to acceptable
accuracy at distances from the well of more than one and a half times the
aquifer thickness.
The commonly used formulae for estimation of the steady-state discharge
flow rate are listed in Table 7.1, together with diagrams of the idealized
Table 7.1 Simple formulae for estimation of steady-state flow rate

Case Schematic diagram Formula for steady- Notes

state flow rate Q

Radial flow to wells

Fully penetrating well,
2␲kD(H9hw)
confined aquifer, Q:ᎏᎏ (7.3) k:soil permeability;
circular source at In[R0/re] D:thickness of confined aquifer;
distance R0 H:initial piezometric level in aquifer;
(Theim equation) hw:lowered water level in equivalent well;
re:equivalent radius of well;
R0:radius of influence.

Fully penetrating k:soil permeability;

2␲kD(H9hw)
well, confined aquifer, Q:ᎏᎏ (7.4) D:thickness of confined aquifer;
line source at distance In[2L0/re] H:initial piezometric level in aquifer;
L0 (method of images) hw:lowered water level in equivalent well;
re:equivalent radius of well;
L0:distance to line source.
Table 7.1 Continued

Case Schematic diagram Formula for steady- Notes

state flow rate Q
Fully penetrating well, ␲k(H29h2w) k:soil permeability;
unconfined aquifer, Q: ᎏᎏ (7.5) H:initial water table level in aquifer;
circular source at In[R0/re] hw:lowered water level
distance R0 (Dupuit– in equivalent well;
Forcheimer equation) re:equivalent radius of well;
R0:radius of influence

Fully penetrating well, k:soil permeability;

␲k(H29h2w)
unconfined aquifer, line Q: ᎏᎏ (7.6) H:initial water table level in aquifer;
source at distance L0 In[2L0/re] hw:lowered water level
(method of images) in equivalent well;
re:equivalent radius of well;
L0:distance to line source.
Partially penetrating
well, confined aquifer Q pp:BQfp
Qpp:flow rate from partially
(7.7) penetrating well;
Qfp:flow rate from fully penetrating well;
B:partial penetration factor for radial flow
(obtained from Figure 7.9(a)).

Partially penetrating Qpp:flow rate from partially

well, unconfined aquifer Q pp:BQfp (7.7) penetrating well;
Qfp:flow rate from fully penetrating well;
B:partial penetration factor for radial flow
(obtained from Figure 7.9(b)).

Plane flow to slots

Fully penetrating slots, x:linear length of slot;
2kDx(H9hw)
confined aquifer, flow Q: ᎏᎏ (7.8) k:soil permeability;
from line sources on L0 D:thickness of confined aquifer;
both sides of slot H:initial piezometric level in aquifer;
hw:lowered water level in equivalent slot;
L0:distance of influence;
Table 7.1 Continued

Case Schematic diagram Formula for steady- Notes

state flow rate Q

Partially penetrating x:linear length of slot;

2kDx(H9hw)
slots, confined aquifer, Qpp: ᎏᎏ (7.9) k:soil permeability;
flow from line sources (L0;␭D) D:thickness of confined aquifer;
on both sides of slot H:initial piezometric level in aquifer;
hw:lowered water level in equivalent slot;
L0:distance of influence;
␭:partial penetration factor (obtained
from Figure 7.9(c)).

Fully penetrating slots, x:linear length of slot;

kx(H29h2w)
unconfined aquifer, Q: ᎏᎏ (7.10) k:soil permeability;
flow from line sources L0 H:initial water table level in aquifer;
on both sides of slot hw:lowered water level in equivalent slot;
L0:distance of influence.
Partially penetrating kx(H29h2w) x:linear length of slot;
slots, unconfined Q:[0.73;0.23(P/H)] ᎏᎏ (7.11) k:soil permeability;
aquifer, flow from line L0 H:initial water table level in
sources on both aquifer;
sides of slot hw:lowered water level in
equivalent slot;
L0:distance of influence;
P:depth of penetration of slot
below original water table.

Plane and radial flow

Rectangular systems,
confined aquifer Q:kD(H9hw)G (7.12) k:soil permeability;
D:thickness of confined aquifer;
H:initial piezometric level
in aquifer;
hw:lowered water level in
equivalent slot;
G:geometry shape factor
(obtained from Fig. 7.10).
 Design of groundwater lowering systems 202

geometry. The formulae are categorized by whether the aquifer is confined

or unconfined, whether flow is radial or plane and whether the well or slot
is fully or partially penetrating. All these conditions must be clarified dur-
ing development of the conceptual model before the formulae can be
applied.
A significant qualification on the use of these formulae is that the results
will only be as valid (or invalid!) as the parameters used in them. Previous
sections have discussed the selection of permeability values for design pur-
poses, and the need for sensitivity and parametric analyses. A similar

Figure 7.9 Partial penetration factors for wells and slots (after Mansur and
Kaufman 1962). (a) Radial flow to wells in confined aquifers, (b) radial flow to wells
in unconfined aquifers, (c) plane flow to slots in confined aquifers.
 Design of groundwater lowering systems 203

Figure 7.9 Continued.

approach should be applied when using the steady-state formula.

Additionally, other parameters should be selected with care, including:

(a) Equivalent radius (re) of system. For radial flow cases this can be esti-
mated from equation (7.1) or (7.2).
(b) Radius of influence (R0) for radial flow cases. The radial flow cases
assume a circular recharge boundary at radius R0. This is a theoretical
concept representing the complex behaviour of real aquifers (see Section
3.4); the distance of influence is not a constant on a site, but is initially
zero and increases with time. However, the simplification of an empirical
R0 value is a useful one. The most reliable way of determining R0 is from
pumping test analyses presented as a Cooper–Jacob straight-line plot of
distance–drawdown data (see Section 6.6). If no pumping test data are
available approximate values of R0 (in metres) can be obtained from
Sichardt’s formula (which is actually based on earlier work by Weber)

R0:3000(H9hw)兹k
苶 (7.13)

where (H9hw) is the drawdown (in metres) and k is the soil permeabil-
ity (in m/s). This formula needs to be modified when used to analyse large
204 Design of groundwater lowering systems

Figure 7.10 Shape factor for confined flow to rectangular equivalent wells (from Powrie
and Preene 1992, with permission).

equivalent wells. Dupuit assumed that the radius of the well was small in
comparison to the radius of influence, but often the radius re may be large
in comparison to R0. In such cases the following equation can be used.

R0:re;3000(H9hw)兹k
苶 (7.14)

When estimating R0, it is important to review the calculated distance of

influence to avoid using wildly unrealistic values. In the authors’ expe-
rience values of less than around 30 m or more than 5,000 m are rare
and should be viewed with caution. It may be appropriate to carry out
 Design of groundwater lowering systems 205

sensitivity analyses using a range of distance of influence values to see the

effect on calculated flow rates. For the radial flow case R0 appears in a
log-term so small errors do not have a significant effect on calculated flow
rates, but the possibility of gross error exists if a very large or very small
R0 is used.
(c) Distance of influence (L0) for plane flow cases. L0 (in metres) can be
estimated from Sichardt’s formula, but a different calibration factor
must be used.

L0:1750(H9hw)兹k
苶 (7.15)

where k is in m/s and (H ⫺ hw) is in metres. The distance of influence

appears as a linear term in the plane flow equations – the estimated flow
rate is inversely proportional to L0. The distance of influence must be
chosen with care, and sensitivity analyses are strongly recommended.
(d) Lowered water level (hw) inside the equivalent well or slot. The equivalent
well or slot method requires that the lowered water level (inside the well
or the slot) used in equations is the groundwater level in the excavation
area itself. Obviously, the water level in each individual well will be lower
(perhaps considerably so), but this drawdown would not be representa-
tive of the drawdown in the equivalent well or slot.

7.4.2 Cumulative drawdown analysis – theoretical method

The formulae described in the previous section are used to analyse systems
of closely-spaced wells, modelled as equivalent wells or slots. Such an
approach is less satisfactory if the wells are widely-spaced; in those cases a
cumulative drawdown (or superposition) method may be more suitable.
This method takes the advantage of the mathematical property of super-
position applied to drawdowns in confined aquifers. In essence, the total
(or cumulative) drawdown at a given point in the aquifer, resulting from the
action of several pumped wells, is obtained by adding together (or super-
imposing) the drawdown from each well taken individually (Fig. 7.11). This
approach is theoretically correct in confined aquifers, but is invalid in
unconfined aquifers where the changes in saturated thickness that occur
during drawdown complicate the interaction of drawdowns.
Expressed mathematically, the superposition principle means that the
cumulative drawdown (H9h) at a given point as a result of n wells pump-
ing from a confined aquifer is the sum of the drawdown contribution from
each well.
n
(H9h):冱 (H9h)i (7.16)
i:1

Established mathematical expressions for the drawdown from an individual

well can be applied to equation (7.16) to estimate the drawdown at a given
point. For example, using the method of Theis (1935) in a homogeneous and