Full Manual Tile Drainage PDF

TILE DRAINAGE MANUAL
Edited by
Dr. Muhammad Akram Kahlown
and
Dr. A. D. Khan
PAKISTAN COUNCIL OF RESEARCH IN WATER RESOURCS

MINISTRY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN
ISLAMABAD
2004
ISBN 969-8469-13-3
PCRWR 2004
Khyaban-e-Johar, H-8/1, Islamabad - Pakistan
LIST OF PERSONNEL ASSOCIATED
Draft Prepared by Atta-ur-Rehman Chaudhry

General Manager (retd)
Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA)
Reviewed by Dr. Abdul Majeed

Chief Research, PCRWR, Islamabad
Mr. Moula Bux Mirbahar
Director Drainage Research Centre, PCRWR, Tandojam
T I L E D R A I N A G E M A N U A L
PREFACE
Irrigated areas in Pakistan are exposed to the problems of waterlogging and soil salinity from
profusely leaking conveyance systems and absence of contemporary drainage networks. To
combat this onslaught, WAPDA in 1960 initiated a well organised effort and as a first
priority provided sub-surface drainage through tubewells in areas underlain by useable
groundwater. Sub-surface drainage extended further to areas technically feasible for
tubewell drainage but is underlain by highly saline groundwater and where environmentally
safe disposal of effluent is becoming increasingly difficult. To enable safe disposal of saline
effluent for control of waterlogging and salinity on more permanent basis, tile drainage is
being introduced to reduce the quantum of drainable surplus and its salinity. Tile drainage is
also required for areas in need of drainage but which are not underlain by aquifers suitable
for any other drainage method. Four tile drainage projects namely, Khairpur, Mardan and
Drainage IV and Left Bank Outfall Drain (LBOD) Mirpurkhas have been completed so far
and others are at various stages of implementation.
Tile drainage is new in this country, and because of lack of awareness of previous findings
about its investigations, design, evaluation and experience within the country needs to be
increased. The author was associated with planning, design and monitoring of drainage
projects in WAPDA and had the opportunity of in-depth study of various drainage modes.
Notes that were drawn from various sources on the subject are hereby compiled to share our
experience with young engineers. The publication is also expected to be useful as a ready
reference for practising engineers.
Dr. Muhammad Akram

Kahlown
Chairman
Pakistan Council of Research
in Water Resources (PCRWR)
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Description Page
List of Personnel Associated iii
Preface v
I. INTRODUCTION
Purpose and Scope 1
Need for Drainage 1
Modes of Artificial Drainage 2
Selection of Drainage System 2
Topographic Factors 2
Soil Factor 4
Water Factors 4
Economic Factors 4
II. DRAINAGE INVESTIGATIONS

General 7
Review of Existing Data 7
Field Reconnaissance 9
Topography 9
Geology 10
Soils 10
Soil Texture 10
Soil Structure 10
Sub-Surface Investigation 11
Sources of Waterlogging 13
Precipitation 14
Irrigation 14
Seepage 14
Hydrostatic Pressure 14
Groundwater Studies 14
Out-fall Conditions 15
Drainable Porosity and Specific Yield 16
Drainable Surplus 17
Field Irrigation 17
Seepage Losses 18
Rainfall 24
Evapotranspiration Losses 26
Leaching Requirements 27
2
III. FLOW INTO DRAINS

Introduction 31
Steady State Drainage Equations 31
Donnan Equation 31
Hooghoudt Equation 33
Kirkham Equation 36
Ernst Equation 39
Homogeneous Anisotropic Layered Soils 44
Non-steady State Drainage Equations 49
Glover-Dumm Equation 49
Kraijenhoff-Maasland Equation 52
Application of Drainage Equation 52
IV. FIELD TESTS AND ANALYSIS

Hydraulic Conductivity below Watertable 59
Principle 59
Auger Hole Method 59
Drilling of the Hole 59
Removal of Water 60
Measurement of Rate of Rise 60
Data Analysis 61
Limitations 62
Piezometeric Method 62
Single Well Drawdown Test 65
Hydraulic Conductivity above the Watertable 66
Shallow Well Pump-inTest 66
Cylinder Permeameter 68
Determination of Infiltration Rate 68
V. TILE DRAINAGE DESIGN

General 79
Crop Growth and Drainage 79
Drainage and Farming Operations 81
Physics of Soil Moisture 81
Plant-Soil-Water Relations 84
Drainage Design Criteria 85
Depth to Watertable 86
Design Drainage Rate 87
Water Balance 88
Drainage Coefficient 89
Flow Rate for Laterals 92
Drain Depth 92
Drain Spacing 95
Steady State Solution 95
Transient Flow Solution 95
Drain Gradient 95
3
Drain Size 97
Size of the Collector 98
Gravel filter Permeable Envelope 99
Filter Design 99
Gap Width/Slot Size 101
Entrance Loss 102
Sump and Pump Capacity 103
Margin of Safety 104
VI. CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE

System Layout 111
Pipes for Drains 111
Rigid Pipes 112
Plastic Tubing 113
Laying of Pipe Drains 117
Manholes 117
Surface Inlets 117
Outlet Structures 117
Operation and Maintenance 117
VII. MONITORING AND EVALUATION OF

DRAINS AND SYSTEMS
Propose 119
Performance Criteria 119
Testing Drain Line Performance 120
General Considerations 120
Field Measurements 122
Data Recording and Processing 123
Testing Drainage Systems 123
Purpose 123
General Procedure 124
Testing and Measurements 124
Analysis of Data 126
Steady State Condition 126
Non Steady State Conditions 127
Sheet for Recording Basic Site Data 133
Bibliography 137
4
List of Tables
Table # Title Page No
1.1 Influence of Topographic Factors on the Type of Drainage Needed 2

1.2 Assessment of Soil Factors and their Influence on Drain Choice 4
1.3 Assessment of Water Sources Factors and their Influence on Drain 5
Type
2.1 Textural Classes and Textural Class Modifying Terms 11

2.2 Soil Structural Classes 12
2.3 Test Site Density - Maximum Area (ha) Per Test Site 12
2.4 Drainable Porosity Values as related to Soil Texture and Structure 16
2.5 Application Efficiency 18
2.6 Approximate Deep Percolation Loss for use in Drain Spacing 19
Calculations
2.7 Complete Elliptic Integrals of the First Kind 28
3.1 Value for the Hooghoudts Equivalent Depth d 35

3.2 Value of Fk according to Toksoz and Kirkham 37
3.3 Drain Spacing for Chart Plotting 46
3.4 Variation of U with Anisotropy 47
3.5 ct and gt Coefficients for Kraijenhoff and Massland Equation 53
5.1 Soil Moisture Content for Various Tensions 84

5.2 Watertable Depths (m) 86
5.3 Suggested Irrigation Season Watertable Depth 87
5.4 Classification of areas by Groundwater Salinity and Watertable 89
Depth
5.5 10 Days Irrigation and Rainfall Recharge in 5 Wet Year at Mardan 90
Pakistan
5.6 Estimated Maximum Recharge 1 in 5 Wet Years Adjusted for 91
Cropped Area
5.7 Watertable Response to Irrigation and Rainfall Recharge for 1 in 5 96
Wet Year
5.8 Estimation of Tile Lengths and Sizes Required 98
5.9 Area Discharge Factor 98
5.10 Gradation Relationship between Base Material and Dia of Graded 99
Envelop
5.11 Thickness of Filter for Values of F/A. 100
6.1 Load on Concrete or Clay Pipe Per Lineal Foot for Various Backfill 114
Materials
6.2 Allowable Crushing Strength in Pounds Per Lineal Foot for Rigid 115
Pipe Drains in a Gravel Envelope
6.3 Load Coefficient for Computing of Backfill (Marstone) 117
7.1 Performance Criteria 119

7.2 Recharge/Discharge Rate and Corresponding Hydraulic Head 127
5
Purpose and Scope
INTRODUCTION
Irrigated agriculture has developed through centuries and supported many old civilizations. However, due to
lack of adequate drainage to maintain a balance between soil, water and plant relationship, land resources
degraded to a level that these could no longer sustained these civilizations. The once mighty civilization of
Babylon and Syria in Asia and Carthoge in North Africa were wiped out by misuse of water and land
resources. More awareness now exists about drainage of irrigated areas for sustained production and it is
intended to compile this information to provide a firm base and insight to drainage engineers. This
publication is primarily oriented to serve as a ready reference on tile drainage and include investigation,
design and testing of the systems. Some information on construction and materials has also has been
included. It also provides important tables, Nomograms and other vital information of practical use.
Need for Drainage

Plants, in addition to other nutrients, require moisture and aeration for their optimum growth. As
precipitation and temperature vary in space and time therefore, in certain areas and at times, the moisture in
soils may be deficient (arid zones) or in excess of the crop requirements (humid zones). Irrigation and
drainage requirements therefore, vary from region to region. Humid areas may require artificial drainage,
whereas in arid zones, artificial irrigation is needed to keep the soil moisture at an optimum level. Also, in
humid areas salts in the soils are automatically removed through excess precipitation and leaching whereas,
arid zones due to lack of soil moisture to suffer heavily from salt concentration in the soil profile. Thus in
arid zones, in addition to artificial irrigation, adequate drainage facilities are extremely essential to keep the
soils free from harmful salt concentration. Therefore, irrigation, drainage and reclamation are complementary
processes of equal importance, particularly in arid zones, and none can be overlooked forever. For best
results a proper balance needs to be maintained between the first two in terms of the right amount of soil
moisture available to crops in different stages of their growth. Under reclamation, to maintain soil fertility,
year after year, injurious salts must not be allowed to accumulate in the root zone i.e. an appropriate
distribution of salts in the soil profile must be maintained by the necessary reclamation measures. Lack of
attention to these fundamentals in the past led to serious catastrophes. Irrigation science must therefore, be
looked upon as the science of irrigation, drainage and reclamation, all three processes singly and collectively
for soil and water management.
The processes of irrigation, drainage and reclamation are always considered in the development of the two
most important natural resources i.e. land and water. These natural resources are permanent assets of every
nation and of the humanity at large. These resources need to be used wisely and passed on un-impaired and
undiminished to the generations to follow. Nothing should be done which would deprive future generation of
any part of their means of livelihood and well being. To ensure this it is important that in undertaking
irrigation, drainage and reclamation operations, short term gains must give way to the achievement of all time
benefits.
6
Modes of Artificial Drainage

The two modes of artificial drainage normally used are drains (horizontal drainage), and tubewells (vertical
drainage). Drains sub-divide themselves into open drains for surface or subsurface drainage, and tile drains
(sometimes called tube drains) for subsurface drainage. Similarly, tubewells are classed according to their
design characteristics; deep or shallow depending upon their depth; skimming or scavenger wells when
designed to skim thin fresh water layer overlying the saline groundwater; and collector wells when thin layers
of aquifer is tapped with horizontal radial strainers. The tubewells are also categorized according to their
functions such as, drainage well when used purely for drainage, irrigation-cum-drainage when effluent is used
for irrigation and irrigation wells when drainage is not the objective.
Selection of Drainage System

Selection of one mode of drainage or combination of both methods depends upon the nature of the problem
and the physical characteristics of the project area. The physical factors identified are topographic factors, soil
factors and water factors. However, when physical factors are equally favorable for drains and tubewells then
the deciding factor may be their relative economics, ease in operation and maintenance and long term impact
on the environment. Brief descriptions of physical and financial factors are enumerated below68:
Topographic Factors
Topographic survey is the basis of all investigations and on this framework is built the soil survey, water level
survey, drain location, and outlet feasibility. It gives clue to the type of drainage needed and provides
information upon which to base the specific drainage plan. Basin-type topography often lends itself to
pumping for drainage55; broad, flat fields are ideal for tile drainage in grid pattern and benches and swabs call
for interceptor lines13. Table 1.1 shows how various topographic factors influence the type of drains needed.
Table 1.1: Influences of Topographic Factors on Drainage Mode Needed
Topographic Implied Drainage Considerations

Factors
1 Steep, hilly (a) No outlet problem, subsurface drainage adequate.
(b) Single line interception in swabe bottoms.
(c) Look for seepage at toe of slope, or at outcrops or along
waterways
2 Rolling (a) Probably no outlet problem, surface drainage adequate.
(b) Single line or herringbone pattern of drainage system.
(c) Single line along wet waterways.
3 Benches (a) Probably no outlet problems.
(b) Grid system on benches and probably an interceptor line at toe
of bench.
4 Gently (a) May have outlet problem, surface drainage generally adequate.
sloping (b) Grid system or open drains on grid parallel to canal system.
(c) Single line along wet waterways.
5 Flat lake bed (a) Probably needs outlet drain.
or flood plain (b) Grid system or open drains on grid parallel to canal system in
direction of greatest slope
(c) Drainage pump occasionally needed.
6 Closed basin (a) Would need outlet facility.
(b) Drainage well or sump with pump might solve both drainage
and outlet problems.
7
Plate 1: Severe Problem of Waterlogging in Indus Plain
8
Soil Factors
Drainage system can be adequately designed with knowledge of the soil profile and its drainage
characteristics. The information required is: (i) type of soils; (ii) thickness of various strata; (iii) continuity of
strata; (iv) position of various strata with respect to ground surface; (v) hydraulic conductivity and porosity of
various soil layers; (vi) Transmisivity; (vii) Storage coefficient; (viii) Drainable porosity; (ix) Deep
percolation; (x) Soil salinity Table 1.2 gives the general guide.
Table 1.2: Assessment of Soil Factors and Their Influence on Drain Choice
No. Soil Factors Implied Drainage Considerations

1. Deep (2m or more) permeable sands, Open drains or tube drains suitably spaced.
sandy loams and clay loams..
2. Deep (2m or more) Impermeable silty Careful management of irrigation water plus
clays and clays. mole drains suitably spaced, surface drains
and/or tube drains.
3. Shallow (1m or less) permeable sand, Consider deep plowing to 120 cm depth and
sandy loams and clay loams underlain by then installation of tube drains at 120 cm
impermeable soils. depth with careful irrigation water
management; tube drains at 1 m depth in
humid areas.
4. Shallow (1m or less) impermeable clays Tube drains suitably spaced with periodic sub-
or silty clays underlain by permeable soiling of upper soil strata; surface drains in
soils. humid areas
5. Soils that gradually change to more Tube or open drains will have greatest effect if
permeable strata with depth. placed as deep as possible.
6. Soils that gradually change to less Tube drains will have greatest effect if placed
permeable strata with depth. as shallow as possible below the root zone and
surface drains.
7. Deep (3 to 4m thick) impermeable clays Sump or drainage well, surface drains in
and silty clays underlain by water humid areas.
bearing coarse sands or gravels.
Water Factors
Sources of recharge as seepage from Irrigation network, rainfall, field application losses, literal inflow
towards area, and sources of discharge such as down valley flow, evapotranspiration. The water balance
would lead to calculation of drainage coefficient or drainage surplus which should be remove from an area
through a drainage system for desired water table control.
A survey of the historic hydrology, climate trend and irrigation practices should be made to determine their
relationship to watertable fluctuations. The source of all waters coming into the area must be determined and
may provide a key to the measures needed to remedy undesirable high watertable conditions. If excess water
is due to precipitation, the remedial measures would probably be better surface drainage, if due to canal
seepage an interception drain may be indicated, and if due to artesian pressure pumped wells may provide the
most practicable remedy. Table 1.3 gives a broad guideline.
Economic Factors
When various drainage methods can be employed with equal facility and are technically feasible, then
economic factors play the decisive role. A comparative study carried out for Regional Planning of Northern
Indus Plain by WAPDA Consultants84 states as under:
In the Northern Indus Plain the characteristics of the surface and underlying alluvium do not restrict the
subsurface horizontal drainage by appropriate means. The surface slopes are however, inadequate to permit
9
the disposal of subsurface drainage water by gravity and would require sumps and pumps. Deep open drains
in flat areas in addition to seepage water would collect storm run off and require very high pumping capacity.
The tile or tube drains can be used with advantage under such circumstances discharging into sumps and
pumped for disposal of effluent. However in comparatively less saline groundwater area tubewell drainage is
considered economical. The initial cost of a tile drainage system plus the present worth of operation and
maintenance costs over a 45 years operation period is approximately Rs.655 as compared to Rs. 327 per acre
for tubewell drainage.
It is therefore, evident that if the two modes are technically feasible for an area their relative economics
control the decision of selecting the drainage method. Costs of construction, operation and maintenance of
drainage systems is on increase and many a times, under the primitive irrigation practices it may not be an
economically viable proposition. In such case it may be advisable to adjust the cropping pattern to suit soil
and water environments.
Table 1.3: Assessment of Water Source Factors and their Influence on Drain Type
Watertable Factors Implied drainage considerations
1. Watertable fluctuates a) Improved water management may preclude drain system.

with irrigation cycle b) Tube drain grid system will handle excess irrigation water.
2. Watertable fluctuates a) Better surface drainage is needed.

with rainfall b) Tube drain system should be considered.
3. Artesian pressure from a) Drainage relief well or deep tubewell are needed.
deep aquifers
4. Seepage from canal or a) Lining of canal or reservoir to prevent seepage may eliminate
reservoir. the drainage problem.
b) Interceptor tile drain or open drain near canal or reservoir.
5. Seepage from outcrops or a) Interceptor tile drain or open drain.

along toe of bank.
6. Seepage from leaking a) Seal or cap well to prevent uncontrolled flow.

artesian wells.
7. Ponded water at lower a) Proper leveling may eliminate pond areas.

ends of fields. b) Pump back drain systems.
c) Proper tail water waste ditches.
8. Ponded water in fields. a) Proper grading for even distribution.

b) Surface field drains.
9. Drainage water of poor a) Drainage water must be disposed of so as to eliminate

quality. contamination downstream (irrigation areas).
10. Drainage water of good a) Drainage water can be reused or mixed with fresh water for
quality. reuse downstream.
Blank page
10
DRAINAGE INVESTIGATIONS
General
Land drainage is invariably associated with land development and rarely alone justifies the operation to
achieve a projects objectives. Most of the information needed for drainage, therefore, is the same as that
required for any land development or reclamation project. In addition to geological, topographic, climatic,
soil and agriculture data, drainage investigation requires special surveys and studies such as; groundwater
balance, hydraulic conductivity, soil moisture characteristics, sub-surface lithology and aquifer characteristics
and cropping pattern, cropping intensity. Many types and diversity of drainage problems require a clear
understanding of the purpose of a particular investigation. Some drainage problems are simple and their
solution readily apparent; for others, a limited investigation will suffice. Most drainage problems, however,
involve a thorough study of the complex relationships among soils, water, crops, salts and irrigation practices.
As a general rule, to safeguard against the wastage of time and money on studies, which later may prove to
have been superfluous, phased investigations are recommended i.e. reconnaissance and semi-detailed level for
feasibility and detailed level immediately prior to construction. The recommended phasing may differ in each
individual case depending upon the existing data available and the extent of the project area. For areas where
sufficient data is already available the phases may reduce to two and in case of small areas may be even to
one. As each level of study means cost, therefore, the size of the project should not be very small to keep the
cost per unit area low. As a rough guideline the total cost of studies may be 5 to 10 percent of the project
cost. If the conclusion at any investigation phase is negative due to insurmountable technical or economic
problems, further study phases may be dispensed with saving cost and time. The investigations should aim to
provide answer to the questions such as:
Is there excess water or salt now or in future?
What is the source of the excess water and salt?
How much water and salt must be removed?
What type of drainage system is the best?
Is an adequate outlet available for excess water and salt?
Can the soils be economically drained?
Various levels of investigations generally encompass almost all data and differ only in intensity. The
investigations carried out in each phase should fit into a pattern that can be expanded into more complete
study in subsequent phases. Reconnaissance level study is mainly based on existing information and may
include some reconnaissance level fieldwork. The maps may have scale of 1/25,000 or 1/50,000. The study
should lead to possible alternate solutions, their approximate cost, and identify the need for additional
investigations and their program. Semi-detailed level study comprises additional investigations required to
workout the reconnaissance level sketch plans up to a semi-detailed level. The data collected should lead to
identification and design of project works to such a detail that the cost can be determined to an accuracy of
about 10 percent. The maps are usually of 1/25,000 or 1/10,000 scale. The detailed level survey leads to pre-
construction design and preparation of contract documents for the project alternative chosen for construction.
Review of Existing Data

The first step in the investigations is to collect the existing data with various agencies about geology, soils,
topography, well logs, water levels and their fluctuations, precipitation, soil salinity, crop statistics, land use,
Irrigation practices and surface flows etc. Analysis of these data will ascertain their adequacy and the need
and extent of additional data requirement.
11
Plate 2: Investigations Process at Tile Drainage Site at Tandojam in Sindh Province of Pakistan
12
Field Reconnaissance
One of the most important steps in any investigation is the field reconnaissance to acquaint oneself with the
area and current conditions and is helpful in programming additional investigations. It is beneficial if the
investigator is accompanied by some one familiar with the area during the reconnaissance survey. The survey
should be sufficiently thorough to give the following information:
(a) Location and capacity of natural nullahs, drains and their structures;
(b) High water marks and other information which may help in evaluating flood flows;
(c) Location and condition of outlet for drainage effluent;
(d) Location and characteristics of canals, distributaries, wells, springs, ponds, reservoirs and
other possible groundwater sources;
(e) Existing groundwater level, its seasonal and long term fluctuation and direction of
groundwater flow;
(f) Local irrigation practices, water application and irrigation efficiency, cropping pattern, crop
condition and future trend;
(g) Type, location, spacing, depth and effectiveness of existing drains in the specified
study/adjacent area. Analysis of existing drains in adjacent or similar area is one of the
most important items of drainage investigation to determine drainage requirements for the
study area;
(h) Topographic features which may affect the location of drains;
(i) Salinity or alkalinity status of soil profile;
(j) Status and scope of any existing drainage proposal or program;
(k) Interaction and dialogue with local inhabitants to ascertain how they look toward the
problem, its severity and possible solutions; and
(l) The depth to barrier is essential to determine its effect on drainage requirements, and may be
obtained from existing well logs or few test holes may be drilled for its location. Few
groundwater profiles may be made showing the natural surface and subsurface strata
profiles at strategic points.
Topography
Topographic maps are essential in any detailed drainage investigations. These maps show land slopes, length
of slope, location and direction of natural drainage, potential outlets and other special conditions that affect
drainage. Topography is of prime importance in determining the drainage need and its variation in the area
and the facilities required. Where surface slopes are sufficient, excess surface water will flow out rapidly
from the area and diminish recharge to the ground watertable with consequent reduction in artificial sub-
surface drainage needs. Topography therefore, can mean the difference between the need for little or no
artificial drainage facilities and extensive drainage facilities.
For preliminary study of large areas with considerable relief, 5-foot contour interval is satisfactory provided
the natural drainage pattern is adequately shown. Two-foot interval is adequate for actual drainage layout,
but for large nearly level areas 1 foot interval is required. The map scales recommended for various levels of
study are:
Reconnaissance study 1:50,000
Detailed study (small area) 1:25,000
Detailed design and layout 1: 5,000
In addition to relief and natural features, the maps should show location of roads, railroads, culverts, pipes,
utility lines, springs, seeps, wells, gardens, graveyards, mosques and other features that may affect the actual
layout.
Provincial Irrigation Departments generally carry out topographic survey to prepare chak-bandi maps for
canal irrigated areas on a scale of 4 inch to a mile and with 1-foot contour interval. These maps are available
and may be used for preliminary studies. As the topography somewhat changes due to land leveling
operations carried out by the farmers therefore, for detailed design and layout new surveys may be necessary.
Satellite Imagery and Aerial photographs are useful in drainage studies and give an overall view of the
drainage area and help in determining the natural drainage pattern and outlet conditions.
13
Geology
The surface and sub-surface geological investigations of the Indus plain and adjoining valleys were conducted
by Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA) and Geological Survey of Pakistan (GSP).
In addition to physiography and lithology, the chemical quality of groundwater at various depths, mechanical
analysis of lithologic samples, and aquifer characteristics through pumping tests were determined. This data
can be obtained and reviewed for supplemental investigations.
Drainage problems mostly appear in irrigated areas that are largely alluvial in character, deposited by the
rivers and streams. Another material that is found in some areas is the eolian wind deposit. The soils thus
formed (loess and sand dunes) are fine grained.
Soils
The main objective of sub-surface drainage, irrespective of its mode, is to drain the excess of soil moisture
from root zone. The primary requirement therefore, is to determine the capability of the soil (i.e., surface soil,
sub-soil and sub-stratum) to transmit water both laterally and vertically. The characteristics that affect the
capability of the soil to transmit water include its homogeneity density, porosity, particle size and it
distribution, texture, structure, chemical properties and water holding capacity and drainability. However, of
all the characteristics that affect movement, the one that integrates the combined effect of a particular water
and soil is the hydraulic conductivity. General correlation between hydraulic conductivity with readily
determined soil properties have proved to be difficult. However, in areas where soils were derived from the
same source, deposited in the same manner, affected by the same climatic conditions and have similar
chemical and physical characteristics, a relationship between hydraulic conductivity and these properties can
be determined. By using this relationship, the hydraulic conductivity tests can be reduced by assigning
correlated hydraulic conductivity to similar soils. Some of the basic soil properties affecting soil water are
briefly discussed as under:
Soil Texture
It relates to the proportions, by weight, of the various sizes of primary mineral particles (sand, silt, clay)
present in a soil sample. Various classes identified to give the description of soil texture is given in Table 2.1.
Soil Structure
The primary mineral particles, together with organic matter, aggregates into larger units. Several
characteristic shapes and sizes are distinguishable with three broad categories i.e. horizontal axis larger than
vertical (platy structure); vertical axis larger than horizontal (prismatic and columnar structure) and horizontal
and vertical axis about equal (blocky, granular and crumb structure). Depending on the soil texture, the
amount and type of organic matter and chemistry of clay particles, the individual physical properties of
structural units (called peds) can vary considerably. Major structural classes identified are briefly given in
Table 2.2.
Soil textural classification survey of the Indus Plain was carried out by WAPDA on semi-detailed level, as
per procedure recommended by USDA (U.S. Dept. of Agri.). Soil profiles to a depth of 3 metre or up to
watertable whichever less, were examined through auger borings made on a grid pattern with a density of one
bore per square mile (2.5 km2). In addition, test pits and confirmatory bores were made on numerous
locations for more detailed examination and collection of samples for further analysis.
The soils were classified according to their physical characteristics into soil classes, of which, the most
important unit is the Soil Series. Each series includes soils that have the same sequence of textural horizons
between 30 to 180 cm average depth. Within soil series, soil types were defined according to the texture of
surface soils (0-30 cm). The mapping unit was further modified to include textural grade of the sub-stratum
(180-300 cm) for drainage considerations. During survey other features such as surface relief, surface and
profile salinity, and internal drainage characteristics were also determined. The semi-detailed soil maps for
entire irrigated area of the country are available and can be reviewed to determine the need for additional
investigations, if any.
Soil Survey Pakistan (SSP) has also carried out soil survey with more attention to the genetic characteristics
of the soils. Based on this survey land capability classes have been developed. Review of this information
can also be useful. Table 2.1 gives the systematic procedure with which approximate soil texture soil
structure in Table 2.2 can be determined with remarkable accuracy in the field.
14
Sub-Surface Investigation
Sub-surface investigations aim at obtaining the soil log of the bore holes identifying various layers, locating
any barrier zone and determining in-place hydraulic conductivity of different texture-structure layers below
the watertable. By definition, barrier zone is a layer that has hydraulic conductivity 1/5th or less of the
weighted hydraulic conductivity of the strata above it. Though, this is an arbitrary standard, United States
Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) has worked satisfactorily.
Table 2.1: Textural Classes and Textural Class Modifying Terms
1. Textural Classes
Texture Sand (%) Silt(%) Clay(%)
Sand (S) 85-100 0-15 0-10
Loamy sand (LS) 70-90 0-20 0-15
Sandy loam (SL) 43-85 0-50 0-20
Loam (L) 23-52 20-50 7-27
Silt loam (SiL) 0-50 50-100 0-27
Silty clay loam (SiCL) 0-20 40-73 27-48
Sandy clay (SC) 45-65 0-20 35-55
Silt (S) 0-20 80-100 0-12
Silty clay (SiC) 0-20 40-60 40-60
Clay (C) 0-44 0-40 40-100
2. Basic Textural Class Modifying Terms

Particle size(mm) U.S. Sieve No. Term
0.05 to 0.10 300 to 140 Very fine sand (VFS)

0.10 to 0.25 140 to 60 Fine sand (FS)
0.25 to 0.50 60 to 35 Medium sand (MS)
0.50 to 1.00 35 to 18 Coarse sand (CS)
1.00 to 2.00 18 to 10 Very coarse sand (VCS)

2.00 to 4.00 Gravels
> 4.00 Pebbles
Note: Coarse sand: 25% or more VCS & less than 50% of any other grade of sand.
Sand: 25% or more VCS, CS & S, and less than 50% of F or VFS.
Fine sand: 50% or more FS & less than 25% of VCS, CS &S less than 50% of VFS.
Very fine sand: 50% or more VFS;
Gravelly: 20 to 50% gravell.
Very gravelly: 50 to 90% gravell.
15
Table 2.2: Soil Structural Classes

Structural Class Description
1. Platy Plate thickness (mm)
Very thin platy <1
Thin platy 1 to 2
Medium platy 2 to 5
Thick platy 5 to 10
Very thick platy > 10
2. Prismatic or columnar Macroprism width (mm)
Very fine prismatic or columnar < 10
Fine prismatic or columnar 10 to 20
Medium prismatic or columnar 20 to 50
Coarse prismatic or columnar 50 to 100
Very coarse prismatic or columnar > 100
3. Angular blocky Block dimension on any side (mm)
Very fine, angular blocky <5
Fine, angular blocky 5 to 10
Medium, angular blocky 10 to 20
Coarse, angular blocky 20 to 50
Very coarse, angular blocky > 50
4. Granular Aggregate thickness on any side (mm)
Very fine granular <1
Fine granular 1 to 2
Medium granular 2 to 5
Coarse granular 5 to 10
Very coarse granular > 10
5. CrumbSame as granular
except aggregates
appear very porous. Hydraulic
conductivity
is good.
6. Massive No observable
aggregation or definite orderly
arrangement of natural lines of
weakness.
Note: Hydraulic conductivity is negligible.
The advantage of separately determining in-place hydraulic conductivity of various soil textures is that the
test data can be extended to project the hydraulic conductivity of soil profiles encountered in bore holes where
no tests have been carried out. This may also reduce the need of too many hydraulic conductivity tests in the
field.
The number of hydraulic conductivity tests required depends upon the variability of the soil in the project
area. Sites for hydraulic conductivity tests should be selected on the basis of soil types and, where, soil survey
data is not available, these should be on a regular grid pattern. The size of the grid required is directly related
to soil variability.
At each test site a minimum of two tests should be carried out in two auger holes spaced few metres apart.
Further tests for that site may be considered if the results of these two are very different. The required density
(hectares per bore) is related to soil variability and expected drain spacing and a guideline is as suggested in
Table 2.3.
Table 2.3: Test Site Densities - Maximum Area (hectares) Per Test Site
Area (ha) per test site
Probable drain spacing
Soil Condition
(75 m)
Heterogeneous < 5 5-10 10-15
Homogeneous 10-25 25-50 40-75
From a practical point of view, the depth below the drain level, for which information on the hydraulic
conductivity is required, is limited to 1/8 of the expected drain spacing (1/8L) in homogeneous soils and 1/20
of the spacing (1/20L) in stratified or an isotropic soils. Thus, with an anticipated spacing of 60 metre, the
16
hydraulic conductivity should be measured over a depth of 7.5 metre below the level of the drains in
homogeneous soils, and upto 3 metre in stratified soils. In all cases, however, a depth of 10 m below drain
level should not be exceeded, irrespective of drain spacing. Where a barrier is located higher in the profile, the
upper boundary of this barrier limits the profile to be investigated. Within these limits the following test
depths are recommended26:
Homogeneous Soils
all test sites : 1 metre below expected drain depth; and
1 out of 5 sites : 3 metres below expected drain depth or to a barrier if shallower.
Stratified Soils
all test sites : conduct tests on major soil strata down to 3 metres below drain depth or to
barrier if shallower.
Where the anticipated drain spacing is small the above recommended depths may be greater than the limits set
by 1/8L and 1/20L; e.g. if L=30, 1/20 L = 1.5m. In such cases the 1/8L and 1/20L values present the actual
depth of investigation needed. Where the drain spacing is large the recommended depth may be shallower
than the required depth of 1/8L and 1/20L. The recommended density for the measurement or investigation of
the hydraulic conductivity in the zone between these two levels is:
1. 1 test per 100 ha in stratified soils; and

2. 1 test per 500 ha in uniform soils.
In view of the difficulties encountered in performing auger hole and similar tests at depth greater than 5-8 m,
the profile investigations in the deeper zone should be primarily related to soil texture and structure, and to
pumped well tests where applicable.
The densities and depths of sampling suggested above are based on the assumption that there is a minimum
amount of information available on soils and substrata to use the hydraulic conductivity test results on a wider
scale. Correlation of hydraulic conductivity with texture and structure of the soil is considered indispensable
in all cases and may help reduce the number of tests required.
Ring permeameter measurements should be made to determine vertical hydraulic conductivity if there appears
to be a barrier near drain depth. The term barrier is used for an extensive soil layer, which for design purposes
may be considered an impervious flow boundary.
The ratio of horizontal to vertical hydraulic conductivity (Kh/Kv) is of considerable importance in determining
the depth of the soil profile that should be investigated. In alluvial soils, the horizontal conductivity is usually
higher than the vertical conductivity. The depth of soil to be investigated is inversely proportional to the
square root of Kh/Kv, the required depth of investigation therefore, being less for an isotropic conditions. If a
barrier is not found by profile investigations, it can be assumed at 1/8L for homogeneous soils and at 1/20L for
stratified soils.
Sources of Waterlogging
Sub-surface drainage is aimed at removing excess soil moisture from the root zones and save the crop from its
detrimental effect. The source of excess water can be traced to precipitation, irrigation applications, seepage
from surface water bodies and hydrostatic pressure from an artesian aquifer or a combination of any of these
sources. The investigation studies involve collection of long-term data of these sources of water and its
quantitative analysis, to determine their relative importance and the part played by each source towards
causing sub-surface drainage problem. If more than one source is the cause of excess water then the analysis
becomes more difficult and additional studies may be required to separate their individual effect. In the Indus
plain, for example, infiltration from precipitation and irrigation application and seepage from large network of
unlined conveyance system overlap each other's effect.
The need to locate the cause of waterlogging is essential to determine the remedy. If infiltration from
precipitation is the major cause then the solution may involve additional surface drains and or improved outlet
condition, if over-irrigation it may need introduction of water management, if seepage then improvement in
conveyance system through lining may have to be provided. The analysis required of various water sources is
briefed as under:
17
Precipitation
The long-term data is obtained and analyzed both for its effect on surface runoff and ground watertable. The
distribution of precipitation should be related to the fluctuations in watertable elevations, and long term
records of precipitation should be related to long term hydrographs of water levels, where possible.
Irrigation
In determining whether excess irrigation water is contributing to the problem, the aspects that need to be
investigated are:
the effect of individual irrigation on the watertable and fluctuation of the watertable through out
irrigation season and during times of no irrigation;
the changes in watertable elevation over a period of years, both before and after beginning of
irrigation, if possible;
irrigation practices should be related to soil types and crop needs, and, ideally only enough water
should be applied to furnish crop needs and to maintain a salt balance.
Seepage
The comparison of groundwater fluctuations with water level in canals and reservoirs may indicate the source
of seepage water. The growth of Dibh and other water loving plants downstream from possible sources of
seepage is an indication of a high watertable. The other methods of seepage detection involve use of
radioisotopes, dyes, piezometers and observation holes.
Hydrostatic Pressure
In some areas, especially in sub-mountainous region artesian pressure in the underlying aquifers may
continuously recharge the upper soil layers causing excess soil moisture, such as the problem of waterlogging
of Peshawar City and its adjoining area. The detection of this source is possible through inventory of existing
tubewells and additional test drilling and careful recording of water level of each water bearing formation.
Groundwater Studies
For understanding the extent and severity of drainage problem, collection and analysis of sub-soil water level
data is extremely essential. In the canal irrigated areas Provincial Irrigation Departments have established a
network of observation wells since the inception of canal irrigation. These observation points, which are
mostly open wells, are being observed by them twice a year, once when the watertable is at the lowest level i.e.
in months of April/June and once after Monsoon in October. These wells are numbered and their data can be
obtained and used for study of historic trend of watertable in the study area. However, as the density and
location of these points may not be always adequate, therefore, for preparing an accurate depth to watertable
map additional open wells may be selected or auger holes drilled to observe depth to watertable below natural
surface. At least one full annual cycle of watertable readings should be considered a prerequisite before
locating and designing a drainage system. Monthly readings may be reasonably adequate. During these
observations the water levels of surface water bodies, believed to be connected with groundwater reservoirs
i.e. lakes, rivers, main canals etc., should also be observed and used for preparation of depth and watertable
contour maps.
In an unconfined aquifer which is fairly extensive and homogenous, open wells would record the true
watertable and the readings can be used to prepare depth and watertable contour maps. In areas where, the
aquifer may not be extensive due to geological limitations, information about sub-surface geology would be
necessary for selection of existing or drilling new observation points for watertable survey, and interpretation
of their data. Figure 2.1 indicates some such situations and shows how the observation points need to be
located and interpreted. Before selecting an existing well for observation it would be necessary to know if it
penetrates an unconfined, semi-confined or multiple aquifer system, because the well penetrating semi-
confined or a multiple aquifer would not record the true watertable.
In addition to depth to watertable and watertable contour maps, hydrograph of selected wells may be prepared
and studied to determine the trend and correlate fluctuations with precipitation, canal deliveries and their
operation, and river stage etc., plotted on the same graph. Watertable profiles may be plotted from series of
observation holes showing natural surface level, depth of the observation hole and its lithology if possible.
The elevation of any barrier in each hole should also be marked. Piezometric profile from readings of several
clusters of piezometers can also be plotted. The elevation of Piezometric watertable for each piezometer can
18
be plotted at the elevation of the bottom of that piezometer. Lines drawn through points of equal piezometric
watertable elevation would show equipotential lines and through flow net analysis can help determine the
direction of movement and possibly the source of water. A depth to barrier map is also helpful and should be
prepared if enough information can be gathered from soils and sub-surface investigations.
23.5
23.5
24.1
24.1
o 24
Lake 22.5 Lake
level O level
O
23
23 23
23.5
O 23
Incorrect: Presence of lake

Correct: Presence of lake taken into count
ignored
A B
Layout of Piezometric network for expected Groundwater conditions

A: Incorrect, B: Correct
38
37
38
37
30
Fault
Fault 30 29
29
Incorrect: fault line ignored Correct: fault line taken into count
Piezometers
Streams
Fault
watertable counter line
Figure 2.1: Examples of Incorrect and Correct Layout and Interpretation
Out-Fall Conditions
Adequacy of the out-fall condition for the drainage system is an essential pre-requisite of successful planning
of drainage system and must be thoroughly investigated. The outlet for drainage effluent is generally in the
existing artificial or natural drains or into rivers, creeks or other water bodies, which are affected by seasonal
fluctuations. In either case it is necessary to determine the elevation, frequency and duration of high water
level as accurately as possible so as to analyze its effect on the drainage system.
If the out-fall conditions are inadequate, then these must be made adequate through proper channel
construction and if necessary through pumping. If pumping is inevitable then feasibility of drainage effluent
disposal system, independent of surface drainage system, may also be investigated. In some cases the effluent
may be disposed into sumps, where water can percolate into ground and join the groundwater body. This is
possible only where the groundwater body itself has an outlet into a stream, other drainage features or into an
19
area where it will not be a problem. The infiltration rate in these sumps must be high enough to support
disposal of the necessary quantities to make the method economical. In some cases the temporary disposal
can be in evaporation ponds carved out of the waste land (such as in case of SCARP-VI). The surface area of
the pond must be enough to admit evaporation at least equal to the incoming effluent. The out-fall conditions
in evaporation ponds can deteriorate from accumulation of salt residue and needs to be taken into account,
especially when drains out-falling in the pond have very flat gradients.
Drainable Porosity and Specific Yield

To determine drain spacing with transient flow equation, a representative value of drainable porosity (S) is
required. The methods available for estimating drainable porosity are not completely accurate. Wherever
possible and practical, it should be determined from measurements of drain discharge and drawdown of
existing or pilot drains. Such field-tests integrate variations that would be caused by differences in soil
density and pore size distribution, soil cracks, root holes, soil layering and rate of watertable drop. Where
drains for field-testing are not available, following procedure may be used for estimation:
Representative undisturbed soil sample may be collected for laboratory determination;
Correlate the determined values with texture and structure obtained from soil profile and establish
provisional values of various soil types; and
Compare this information with empirical curves and tables developed elsewhere correlating
drainable porosity with hydraulic conductivity, soil texture and soil structure.
As a first approximation Table 2.4 and Figure 2.2 may be used. However, these estimates may be improved,
as additional information becomes available. An error in estimation of +25 percent results in only a
maximum of + 10 percent drain spacing error. Drainage of soils that have drainable porosity of less than 3
percent is generally difficult and expensive.
Table 2.4: Drainable Porosity Values as Related to Soil Texture and Structure*
Texture Structure Drainable Porosity
Clay Massive, very fine or fine 1-2%
Heavy clay loam columnar
Clay
Clay loam Very fine or fine prismatic, 1-3%
Silty clay angular blocky or platy
Sandy clay loam
Clay
Silty clay
Sandy clay
Silty clay loam Fine and medium prismatic, 3-8%
Clay loam angular blocky and platy
Silty loam
Silt
Sandy clay loam
Light clay loam
Silt Medium prismatic and sub- 6-12%
Silt loam angular blocky
Very fine sandy
loam
Loam
Fine sandy loam Coarse sub-angular blocky and 12-18%
Sandy loam granular, fine crumb
Loamy sand Medium crumb 15-22%
Fine sand Single grain
Medium sand Single grain 22-26%
Coarse sand gravel Single grain 26-35%
* Based on data from the Water and Power Resources Services USBR Drainage Manual.
20
Drainable Surplus
Drainable surplus is the excess of recharge over discharge of an area which is required to be removed from
the soil-aquifer to keep the watertable at a required depth below the ground level. The major sources of
recharge are: (i) field irrigation losses; (ii) watercourse losses; (iii) losses from canal system; (iv)
precipitation; and (v) subsurface inflow. The discharge factors are: (i) evapotranspiration losses; (ii)
pumpage from groundwater reservoir; and (iii) subsurface outflow. Procedure for estimating the quantum of
recharge and discharge from various sources is discussed in the following:
40
30
20
+25%
- 25%
10
1
.2 10 100
1
HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY (cm/hr)
Figure 2.2: General Relationship between Drainable Porosity and Hydraulic Conductivity
Field Irrigation
Losses from the irrigation water applied to the field are through evaporation and deep percolation. Deep
percolation loss is function of application efficiency, which depends on the irrigation method, degree of land
leveling, soil texture, and quantity of water applied (i.e. over or under irrigation). In Pakistan very little work
is reported on deep percolation from irrigation, however, field application efficiencies have been observed
during watercourse monitoring and evaluation studies and are reported in Table 2.5.
21
Table 2.5: Application Efficiency (Ea)
Study Kharif Rabi Annual

(1) 61 Watercourses
N.W.F.P ( 4) 86.6 83.8 85.2
Punjab (36) 79.6 74.5 77.0
Sindh (21) 77.8 77.3 77.5
(2) 41 Watercourses
N.W.F.P ( 5) - - 78
Punjab (23) - - 72
Sindh (13) - - 66
The irrigation method generally used is the level basin and its application efficiency for design purposes is
estimated as 67.5 to 75 percent with deep percolation of 27.5 to 22.5 percent. Table 2.6 gives the anticipated
deep percolation on the basis of soil texture, infiltration rate and irrigation methods can be used in absence of
definite field studies.
Seepage Losses
Seepage loss itself and recharge from it are both highly variable and depend upon the nature of strata,
hydraulic head, discharge and the sealing effect of silt carried by the water etc. Efforts to estimate losses
from canal system in Pakistan were made by Irrigation Engineers from time to time. The empirical equations
relating to loss per million square feet of wetted perimeter (cfs/msf) to average discharge (Q) were developed
and are given below:
q = 5Q0.0625 cfs/msf (Haigh)
0.5625
q = 3.75Q cfs/msf (Sharma)
q = 2.8 Q0.18 cfs/msf (Wapda)
q = a. Q0.5 cfs/mile (LIP)
Where, Q is an average discharge in the length, and a is a constant which varies from 0.06 to 0.11; higher
values for coarser material. Though based on studies yet as a rule of thumb, seepage loss of 6 to 8 cfs/msf of
wetted perimeter is assumed for an average size irrigation canal. Subsequent study of canal losses on some
90 canals made during investigation of Lower Indus Project85 also concluded that estimation of losses using a
fixed seepage rate per million square feet of wetted perimeter was sound and can be applied in future
calculations.
Following percentages based on experience are also in use to estimate the canal seepage losses:
Main canal/branches 15% of head discharge; and

Disty/minors 10% of head discharge.
Empirical relationships to estimate seepage losses have been developed in other countries also, some of
which are as under:
Mortiz Formula
q = 0.2 CV/Q
where:
Q = discharge in cusec;
q = loss in cusec per unit length;
C = constant depending on soil type (see Table 2.7); and
V = velocity in feet per second.
22
Table 2.6: Approximate Deep Percolation Loss for Use in Drain Spacing Calculations (Percent of
Application or Net Input)
1. On Basis of Texture
Loam sand 30% Silt Loam 18%
Sandy Loam 26% Sandy Clay Loam 14%
Loam 22% Clay Loam 10%
Silty Clay Loam, Sandy Clay, Clay 6%
2. On Basis of infiltration Rate
Infiltration Rate Deep Percolation Infiltration Rate Deep Percolation

(in/hr) (%) (in/hr) (%)
0.05 3 1.00 20
0.10 5 1.25 22
0.20 8 1.50 24
0.30 10 2.00 28
0.40 12 2.50 31
0.50 14 3.00 33
0.60 16 4.00 37
0.80 18
3. On Basis of Irrigation Methods, Water Application Efficiency and Soil Type
Water Application Average Deep

Efficiency (Ea100) Percolation as %age
Irrigation Method Application Practices of irrigation water
Soil Texture delivered to the field
Heavy Light Soil Texture
Heavy Light
- day time application, 60 60 30 30
Sprinkler (moderately strong wind)
- night application 70 70 25 25
Trickle - 80 80 15 15
- poorly leveled and 60 45 30 40

Basin shaped
- well leveled and shaped 75 60 20 30
Furrow - poorly graded and sized 55 40 30 40

Border - well graded and sized 65 50 25 35
Soil Type and Value of C

Soil Type Value of C Soil Type Value of C
Cemented gravel 0.34 Sand 1.20
Clay and clayey 0.41 Sandy soil with rock 1.68
loam
Sandy loam 0.66 Sandy and gravely soil 2.20
Volcanic ash 0.68
Note: The term heavy is used to refer to a range of finer texture permeable soils. Light refers to a range of coarser soils
with good to fair water holding capacity. The percentages given do not apply to soils having extreme qualities of
hydraulic conductivity and infiltration rate.
Ea = Et/ld, where Et is evapotranspiration and ld is irrigation water delivered at the farm gate. Deep percolation
losses and losses through surface runoff, specific evaporation effect and tail-water make up the total losses (ld-Et)
according to: ld-Et = (1-Ea) ld = [(1-Ea)/(Ea)Et].
Molesworth Formula
q = CLP R
23
where:
P = wetted perimeter (m);
L = length in km;
R = hydraulic mean depth (m);
C = coefficient varying from 0.0016 for clay to 0.003 for sand; and
q = loss m3/sec/L of canal.
Most of the seepage loss is expected to recharge the groundwater, except a part, which may be lost due to
evapotranspiration from the banks of the canal/adjoining area before reaching the groundwater. No definite
study, however, is available to estimate the percentage of seepage loss likely to become recharge to the
groundwater body. Presently, 88% of seepage loss from main, branch canals and distributaries is considered
as recharge to the groundwater reservoir. Another component of recharge due to seepage is from the losses
in the watercourses and farmers ditches. Seepage losses in watercourses and farmers ditches have been
studied in detail and like seepage losses from canals are highly variable. Figure 2.3 gives the flow chart
which indicates the losses of the order of 45% (25% main watercourse; and 20% farmers ditches) of the
supply at watercourse head. Nearly, 36% out of 45% is considered as a steady state loss through seepage into
wetted perimeter. What portion of this loss recharges the groundwater reservoir is simply a guess work,
however, it cannot be a large percentage because of very shallow depth of the channel and its intermittent
operation. There is a need to estimate this recharge through field study. In absence of any definite study,
theoretical procedures available to estimate canal seepage are explained as under:
FARMER'S
MOGA FIELD ROOT ZONE
BRANCH
INFLOW 57% 75% DELIVERY 63% STORAGE
DELIVERY
100% 55% 34%
75%
25% 25% 37%
FARMERS
S ARKARI FIELD DE EP
BRANCH
LOSSES PERCULATIO N
LOSSES
25% 21%
19%
45%
TOTAL OPERATIONAL
CONVEYANCE LO SSES
45%
84% 16%
STEADY STATE TRANSIENT

LOSSES LOSSES
38% 7%
1% 96% 3% 55% 35% 10%
BRAHCNES
SU RFACE VISIBLE DEAD AND
EVAP ORATION LEAKAGE ST ORAGE BUHD
0.3% 1.2% 3.7% BREAKES
0.7%
LEAKAGE INTO THE TRANSIENT SEEPAGE AND

WETTED PERIMETER WETTIGN UP DRY BANKS
36% 2.3%
Figure 2.3: Flow Chart Showing Operational Losses in Watercourses and Farmers Ditches63
24
Deep Watertable: Where a ditch lies in a soil with low permeability (0.5<K<2m/day) and deep watertable
(Figure 2.4), the seepage loss is given by the following equation48:
sy 2y I
q= -1 *
= K(B + ) . .. (2.1)
cos k I
where:
q= loss of water per unit length of ditch (m3/m/day);
y= height of water in the ditch (m);
B= width of ditch at water level (m);
s= (B-b/2y), side slope of the ditch; and
K= hydraulic conductivity (m/day).
l and l are complete elliptic integrals of the first kind with moduli k* and 1 k* respectively, and,
q B b sy
k * = sin ( + ) = cos
q 2 2 2 q
Figure 2.4: Losses from a Ditch to a Deep Watertable
A simple solution of Eq: (2.1) can be obtained by using the diagram (Figure 2.6). The procedure to be
followed in constructing this diagram is as under:
- Choose value of q/y and calculate K* for given values of s using Eq. (k* = cos sy/q);
- Read the values of l and l from a table of these functions (Table 2.7);
- Calculate the corresponding value of B/y, which for this purpose is written as:
B/y = q/y - 2I/I (Note that K = 1 m/day);
- Plot, for given values of s, q/y against B/y. With Eq: 2.1 the losses are calculated if K is
known, or the value of K is calculated if q is known.
25
Example
An irrigation ditch with top width, B = 4m, bottom width b = 2m, and a water depth, y = 1m, lies in a soil
that has a hydraulic conductivity of 0.8 m/day. What is the loss of water per unit length of ditch. From these
data we calculate:
s = (B-b/2y) = (4-2/2x1) = 1 and B/y = 4.
From the diagram we find the corresponding value of q/y = 6.75. Hence, for K = 1 m/day, q = 6.75 x 1 =
6.75; for K = 0.8m/day; q = 0.8x6.75 = 5.40 m3/day per metre of ditch.
Shallow Watertable: Consider a ditch in a shallow watertable zone (Figure 2.5). The flow region is divided
into two parts i.e., I and II such that in region I the flow is horizontal and therefore:
q/2 = K (h1 - ho) L1. (h1 + ho) / 2 (2.2)
Figure 2.5: Losses from a Ditch to a Shallow Watertable
where, q/2 is the flow per unit length from one side of the ditch. In region II the flow may be written as:
q/2 = K (yo h1) f (2.3)
where, f is a factor depending on the geometry of both canal and aquifer. Eliminating the unknown h.
q/2 = Kf {yo + fL1 - {(yo + fL1)2 - yo + ho2]} (2.4)
To obtain the value of f, the flow in region II is replaced by the flow from a finite line source of length B/2.
For this flow, the distribution of the potential and the streamline is given by:
h + i = log(sinh z + sinh 2 z + sinh2 f )
where:
z = x + iy;
h = the potential; and
= the stream function.
26
By choosing various values of B/2 and yo, the potential distribution and the streamline pattern can be
computed and the corresponding values of hi and f can be read.
The result is given here in curves for f values and variable B/yo and hi/yo (Figure 2.7). A distinction has
been made between shallow ditch cross-section (B/u > 0.9) and deep cross-sections (B/u < 0.9). The
diagrams give complete solution to the problem. Since the flow in both regions I and II must be the same, a
certain value of h is chosen and the following procedure adopted:
Compute B/u and choose the proper diagram;
Choose a value of h1 and compute h1/yo and B/yo ;
Read the appropriate value of f from Figure 2.7;
Substitute the values of ho, h1, yo, f and L1 into Eqs. (2.2) and (2.3) and solve for q; and
If different q values are found, repeat the procedure with the adjusted h1 value.
Example
Assume a ditch with top width B = 3m; bottom width b = 1m; water depth yo = 1m, and ho = 4m above an
impermeable layer. At a distance L = 54m, the watertable height ho is 4m above the impervious layer.
Compute the wetted perimeter u = 1 + 2 x 1.41 = 3.82 m.
Hence:
B/u = 3/3.82 = 0.76 m
(B + yo)/2 = (3+5)/2 = 4 m
B/yo = 3/5 = 0.6 m
L1 = L - (B+yo) = 54-4 = 50
Assume h1 = 4.8 m. Then h1/yo = 4.8/5 = 0.96 m. Read from the diagram in Figure 2.7 (B/u >0.9) f = 1.08.
Substitute f into Eqs. 2.2 & 2.3 giving:
q/2 = K [(4.8-4.0)/50] [(4.8+4.0)/2]
= 0.0704 K and,
q/2 = K (5.0-4.8) 1.08 = 0.126 K
Apparently h1 has been chosen too low, giving too high a value of q/2 in Region II. Therefore, choose h1 =
4.9m, giving h1/yo = 0.98 and f = 1.1. Substitution then gives; q/2 = 0.0801 K and q/2 = 0.11 K. Although
closer, the result in not yet satisfactory, so the procedure should be repeated with h1 = 4.95 m.
18
16
14
12
10
Q/Y
6
3
2
4 5
1.
1
S=
0
2 4 6 8 10 12 14
B /Y
Figure 2.6: Graph for the Analysis of Water Loss from a Ditch to a Deep Groundwater
27
D E E P C R O S S - S E C T IO N S B /u > 0.9
h 1 /Y O
1.0
1.13
0.9
1.2
1.1
0.8 1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.6 0.5
0 .5
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8
B /Y O
S H A L L O W C R O S S -S E C T IO N S B /u < 0.9
h 1 /Y O
1.0
1.10
0.9
0.9
0.8 0.8
0.7
0.7 0.6
0.5
0.6 0.4
0.5
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 B /Y O
Figure 2.7: Graph for Analysis of Water Losses from a Ditch to a Shallow Groundwater
Rainfall
Recharge from rainfall can be estimated by a method developed during investigations of Lower Indus
Projects, with following assumptions86:
(i) rainfall can infiltrate to groundwater only if the intervening soil is at the field capacity; this
condition in arid zone is attained only in areas under crop after their irrigation;
(ii) recharge from fallow area being too small can be neglected;
28
(iii) area under crop is watered once in 15 days and remains above field capacity for two days
thereafter, the soil moisture storage decreases linearly and just prior to next watering it is half
way to permanent wilting point. At this stage the available soil storage is at the rate of 1.25
mm/cm depth up to watertable (loamy soils).
(iv) rainfall is assumed to fall in the first 15 days of the month.
If 15 unit areas are considered, then each area would have different available soil storage as watering is on
different days. Figure 2.8 is a plot, between available soil storage and time in days for 1.5 and 2 metre
watertable depths. On this graph can be drawn a line representing the rainfall minus one day evaporation (X)
and shows the water available for recharge through the soil column after filling up its available storage. If 15
units areas are considered plotted along the time scale, the graph is then a plot of total available soil storage
for each part of the unit areas. The area AEFC gives the total rainfall seeping into the ground over 15 unit
areas; DBEF or DBEF is the amount of water absorbed by the soil of 15 unit areas and ABCD or ABCD is
the recharge to the ground water of 15 unit areas from the precipitation.
The recharge per 15 unit area (q) represented by the area ABCD or ABCD is given by the following
equation:
q = f.(x) dx;
now: f (x) = a x + b
for x = 0, b = 2; f(x) = 2 and for x = 1.25D; f(x) = 15
Therefore a = 13/1.25D; where D is depth to watertable in cm.
f (x) = (13/1.25D) x + 2
Putting this value in the equation for q.
q = (13/1.25D) x + 2 = (13/1.25D) x2/2 + 2x + c
now: q = 0, when x = 0; therefore, c = 0
q = (13/2.5D) x2 + 2x (unit area mm/15 unit area)
Example
Let rainfall = 112 mm; One day evap. = 12 mm
(X) = 112-12 = 100 mm; D = 200 cm
q = (13).(100).(100)/(2.5).(200)+(2)(100)
= 460 mm/15 unit areas
= 30.67 mm/unit area
loss one day evaporation
Rainfall(mm)
200
pt
200
Soil storage (mm)
de
h
e
pt
bl
de
ta
er
e
bl
at
rta
w
t e
s
wa
er
et
m
m
5
1.
2
100
100
X
C D
00
5 10 15
Unit area (day)

Figure 2.8: Graph of Available Soil Storage and Time (days) for 1.5m and 2m Watertable Depths
29
Evapotranspiration Losses
Groundwater losses through evaporation and evapotranspiration is presumed to take place from the un-
cropped area only. It is divided into two parts: (a) evaporation from fallow land; and (b) evaporation and
transpiration from never cultivated area. The general equation for loss from fallow land Of is as under:
Qf = Q.Eo (1 - Xr) CA
where:
Q= ratio of evaporation from depth Y below land surface to surface evaporation;
Eo = free water surface evaporation /half month;
Xr = ratio of cropped area to cultivable areas; and
CA = cultivable area.
Surface evaporation is obtained from free water surface evaporation after applying correction coefficient of
0.7 from July to March and 0.65 from April to June. The ratio Q is then determined from the graph (Figure
2.9) for the depth to water below land surface. Area under crop for each 15 days is determined from
cropping calendar and ratio Xr then determined. Qf determined for each 15 days is then accumulated to
determine annual loss from fallow area.
Proportion X of Surface Evaporation
0 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
3
Depth Below Ground Level
10
Figure 2.9: Evaporation from Below Ground Level
30
For evapo-transpiration from never cultivated land it is assumed that 3% is impermeable surface, and of the
remaining 50% loss from never cultivated soil is given by:
Qn = Q.Eo (0.97-Ar) GA
where:
Qn = loss from never cultivated soil;
Q = ratio of evaporation from depth Y below land surface to surface evaporation; and
Ar = ratio of cultivable area to gross area.
To determine Q, evapotranspiration from vegetative cover and evaporation from bare soil for the required
depth to water is estimated and averaged and factor Q corresponding to that evaporation determined from
graph. Summation of the two losses gives the approximate evapotranspiration losses from never cultivated
land.
Another method of estimating evapotranspiration loss from watertable is from the analysis of well
hydrograph. Assuming that reduction in rate of watertable rise with depth is due to evapotranspiration losses
alone then a graph between depth to watertable and reduction in rate of watertable rise can be plotted from
the well hydrograph and, can be used to estimate loss from different watertable depths.
Leaching Requirement
To reclaim a saline soil the salts in the soil profile are required to be leached and removed. Similarly, if the
irrigation water contains salt then, leaching is required to maintain a favourable salt balance in the root zone
i.e., an equal or greater amount of salt must be leached from the soil by drainage water than is introduced into
soil by irrigation water. Whereas, the initial leaching of a saline soil is a temporary phase, the leaching
requirement when the irrigation water contains salt is of continuing nature. The drainage system therefore,
needs to be designed only to take care of the continued leaching requirement, while for initial leaching
certain temporary measures can be adopted.
The leaching requirements may be defined as the percentage of irrigation water that must pass through the
root zone to control salts at a specified level. For planning purposes the leaching requirement may be
determined by the following equation:
LR = (ECiw/ECdw) 100
or
LR = (Ddw/Diw) 100
where:
LR = leaching requirement in %;
ECiw = electrical conductivity of irrigation water including effective precipitation
(mmho/cm);
ECdw = electrical conductivity of drainage water (mmho/cm);
Ddw = depth to drainage water in acre feet; and
Diw = depth to irrigation water including effective precipitation in acre-feet.
Total infiltration (INF) through the soil from an irrigation application is the sum of total readily available
moisture (TRAM) and the deep percolation (DP):
INF = TRAM + DP = TRAM + INF. LR; and
or
INF = TRAM/1-LR.
Example
TRAM = 3 in; LR = 39%; INF = 3/1-0.39 = 4.92 in; and

DP = 4.92 - 3 = 1.92 in.
i.e. irrigation application of 4.92 inches after infiltration and filling the soil reservoir to field capacity would
cause 1.92 inches of water to percolate deep carrying salts with it. Leaching requirement can be adjusted if
the crops remove salts from the soil. Significant salt removal is feasible only by crops with a large amount of
foliage. However, as the same land is not continuously used for growing the same crop therefore, such
adjustments for design of drainage system may not be significant.
31
Table 2.7: Complete Elliptic Integrals of the First Kind

/2 d
I=
0 (1- k sin2 )1/ 2
2
2
K 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Diff:
.00 1.5 708 712 716 720 724 728 732 735 740 743 3-4
.01 747 751 755 759 765 767 771 775 779 783 4
.02 787 791 795 799 804 808 812 815 820 824 4-5
.03 828 832 836 840 844 848 852 856 860 865 4-5
.04 869 873 877 881 885 889 893 898 902 906 4-5
.05 910 914 918 923 927 931 935 939 943 948 4-5
.06 952 956 960 965 969 973 977 981 986 990 4-4
.07 994 998 003 007 011 016 020 024 028 033 4-5
.08 1.6 037 041 046 050 054 059 063 067 072 076 4-5
.09 080 085 089 094 098 102 107 111 116 120 4-5
.10 124 129 133 138 142 147 151 155 160 164 4-5
.11 169 173 178 182 187 191 196 200 205 209 4-5
.12 214 218 225 228 232 237 241 246 250 255 4-5
.13 260 264 269 273 278 283 287 292 296 301 4-5
.14 306 310 315 320 324 329 334 338 343 348 4-5
.15 353 357 362 367 371 376 381 386 390 395 4-5
.16 400 405 410 414 419 424 429 434 438 443 4-5
.17 448 453 458 463 467 472 477 482 487 492 4-5
.18 497 502 507 512 516 521 526 531 536 541 4-5
.19 546 551 556 561 566 571 576 581 586 591 5
.20 596 601 606 611 616 622 627 632 637 642 5-6
.21 647 652 657 662 668 673 678 683 688 693 5-6
.22 699 704 709 714 719 725 730 735 740 745 5-6
.23 751 756 761 767 772 777 782 788 793 798 5-6
.24 804 809 814 820 825 831 836 841 847 852 5-6
.25 858 863 868 874 879 885 890 896 901 907 5-6
.26 912 918 923 929 934 940 945 951 956 962 5-6
.27 967 973 979 984 990 996 001 007 012 018 5-6
.28 1.7 024 029 035 041 046 052 058 064 069 075 5-6
.29 081 087 092 098 104 110 115 121 127 133 5-6
.30 139 145 151 156 162 168 174 180 186 192 5-6
.31 198 204 210 216 222 228 234 240 246 252 6
.32 258 264 270 276 282 288 294 300 306 313 6-7
.33 319 325 331 337 343 349 356 362 368 374 6-7
.34 381 387 393 399 406 412 418 425 431 437 6-7
.35 444 450 456 463 469 475 482 488 495 501 6-7
.36 508 514 520 527 533 540 546 553 560 566 6-7
.37 573 579 586 592 599 606 612 619 626 632 6-7
.38 639 646 652 659 666 673 679 686 693 700 6-7
.39 706 713 720 727 734 741 748 754 761 768 6-7
.40 775 782 789 796 803 810 817 824 831 838 7
.41 845 852 859 866 874 881 888 895 902 909 7-8
.42 917 924 931 938 945 953 960 967 975 982 7-8
.43 989 997 004 011 019 026 033 041 048 056 7-8
.44 1.8 063 071 078 086 093 101 108 116 124 131 7-8
.45 139 146 154 162 169 177 185 193 200 208 7-8
.46 216 224 232 239 247 255 263 271 279 287 7-8
.47 295 303 311 319 327 335 343 351 359 367 8
.48 375 383 391 399 408 416 424 432 440 449 8-9
.49 457 465 474 482 490 499 507 515 524 532 8-9
.50 541 549 558 566 575 583 592 601 609 618 8-9
.51 626 635 644 652 661 670 679 688 696 705 8-9
.52 714 723 732 741 750 759 768 777 786 795 9
.53 804 813 822 831 840 849 858 868 877 886 9-10
.54 895 905 914 923 933 942 951 961 970 980 9-10
.55 989 999 008 018 027 037 047 056 066 076 9-10
.56 1.9 085 095 105 115 125 134 144 154 164 174 9-10
.57 184 194 204 214 224 234 244 255 265 275 10-11
.58 285 296 306 316 326 337 347 358 368 379 10-11
.59 389 400 410 421 431 442 453 463 474 485 10-11
.60 496 506 517 528 539 550 561 572 583 594 10-11
.61 605 616 627 639 650 661 672 684 695 706 11-12
.62 718 729 741 752 764 775 787 799 810 822 11-12
.63 834 845 857 869 881 893 905 917 929 941 11-12
.64 953 965 977 990 002 014 026 039 051 064 12-13
.65 2.0 076 088 101 114 126 139 152 164 177 190 12-13
.66 203 216 229 242 255 268 281 294 307 320 13-14
.67 334 347 360 374 387 401 414 428 442 455 13-14
.68 469 483 497 510 524 538 552 566 580 595 13-15
.69 609 623 637 652 666 681 695 710 724 739 14-15
.70 754 768 783 798 813 828 843 858 873 888 14-16
.71 904 919 934 950 965 981 996 012 028 044 15-16
.72 2.1 059 075 091 107 123 140 156 172 188 205 16-17
.73 221 238 254 271 288 305 322 338 355 373 16-17
.74 390 407 424 442 459 477 494 512 529 547 17-18
Continued
32
Table 2.7 (Contd.)

K2 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Diff:
.75 565 583 601 619 637 656 674 692 711 730 18-19
.76 748 767 786 805 824 843 862 881 901 920 19-20
.77 940 959 979 999 019 039 059 079 099 120 19-21
.78 2.2 140 161 181 202 223 244 265 286 308 329 20-22
.79 351 372 394 416 438 460 482 504 527 549 21-23
.80 572 595 618 641 664 687 711 734 758 782 23-24
.81 805 830 854 878 903 927 952 977 002 027 24-25
.82 2.3 052 078 103 129 155 181 207 234 260 287 25-27
.83 314 341 368 396 423 451 479 507 535 564 27-29
.84 593 621 651 680 709 739 769 799 829 859 28-31
.85 890 921 952 984 015 047 079 111 144 176 31-33
.86 2.4 209 243 276 310 344 378 413 447 482 518 33-36
.87 553 589 626 662 699 736 773 811 849 888 36-39
.88 926 965 005 045 085 125 166 207 249 291 39-42
.89 2.5 333 376 419 463 507 552 597 642 688 734 43-47
.90 781 828 876 924 973 023 072 123 174 226 47-52
.91 2.6 278 331 384 438 493 548 604 661 718 777 53-59
.92 836 895 956 017 079 142 206 271 336 405 59-68
.93 2.7 471 539 609 680 752 824 899 974 051 128 68-80
.94 2.8 208 288 370 453 538 625 713 803 895 988 80-95
.95 2.9 083 181 280 382 485 591 700 811 925 042 98-119
96 3.0 0161 0284 0410 0539 0672 0809 0950 1095 1244 1399
.97 1559 1724 1895 2073 2257 2449 2648 2857 3074 3302
.98 3541 3793 4059 4340 4638 4955 5295 5661 6056 6485
.99 6956 7478 8061 8723 9487 0393 1502 - - -
.9970 4.0 2933 2950 2967 2983 000 017 034 051 068 085 16-17
.9971 4.3 102 119 137 154 171 189 206 224 241 259 17-18
.9972 277 295 313 331 349 367 385 403 421 440 18-19
.9973 458 477 495 514 532 551 570 589 608 627 18-19
.9974 646 665 685 704 723 743 762 782 802 822 19-20
.9975 841 861 881 902 922 942 962 983 003 024 20-21
.9976 4.4 045 066 087 107 129 150 171 192 214 235 20-22
.9977 257 279 300 322 344 366 389 411 433 456 21-23
.9978 478 501 524 547 570 593 616 640 663 687 23-24
.9979 710 734 758 782 805 830 855 879 904 929 24-26
.9980 953 978 004 029 054 080 105 131 157 185 25-26
.9981 4.5 209 235 262 289 315 342 369 396 424 451 26-28
.9982 479 507 534 563 591 619 648 677 705 735 27-30
.9983 764 793 823 855 883 913 943 973 004 035 29-31
.9984 4.6 066 097 129 161 192 224 257 289 322 355 31-33
.9985 388 421 455 489 523 557 592 626 661 697 33-36
.9986 732 768 804 840 877 914 951 988 026 064 36-38
.9987 4.7 102 140 179 218 258 298 338 378 419 460 38-41
.9988 501 543 585 628 671 714 757 801 846 890 42-46
.9989 936 981 027 074 120 168 216 264 312 362 45-50
.9990 4.8 411 461 512 563 615 667 720 774 828 882 50-55
.9991 937 993 049 107 164 223 282 342 402 463 56-62
.9992 4.9 525 588 652 716 781 848 942 983 051 121 63-71
.9993 5.0 0192 0254 0337 0411 0486 0562 0640 0718 0798 0879 72-83
.9994 0962 1046 1131 1218 1307 1397 1488 1582 1677 1794 84-99
.9995 1873 1974 2077 2182 2289 2399 2511 2626 2744 2864
.9996 2997 3114 3244 3377 3514 3655 3799 3949 4102 4261
.9997 4425 4594 4770 4951 5140 5336 5540 5753 5975 6207
.9998 6451 6708 6978 7264 7567 7889 8234 8604 9005 9439
.9999 9916 0443 1031 1699 2470 3381 4497 5935 7962
.999990 6.0 1428 1478 1529 1580 1632 1684 1737 1791 1845 1899
.999991 7.0 1955 2010 2067 2124 2182 2240 2299 2359 2420 2481
.999992 2543 2606 2670 2735 2800 2866 2933 3001 3070 3140
.999993 3211 3283 3356 3430 3505 3582 3659 3738 3818 3899
.999994 3982 4066 4151 4238 4327 4417 4509 4602 4697 4794
.999995 4893 4994 5097 5203 5310 5420 5533 5647 5765 5886
.999996 6009 6136 6266 6399 6536 6677 6822 6971 7125 7284
.999997 7447 7617 7792 7974 8163 8359 8563 8776 8998 9231
.999998 9475 9731 0002 0287 0591 0913 1258 1629 2029 2464
.999999 8.0 2941 3467 4056 4724 5495 6406 7522 8960 0988 4453
1.0 9.0
33
Blank page
34
FLOW INTO DRAINS
Introduction
Flow to fully penetrating up to barrier parallel drains, which are longer than the spacing between them, is a
case of uni-directional ground water flow. If the drains do not penetrate unto the impervious barrier or the
full aquifer thickness, the flow towards drains becomes much more complicated, subject to the boundary
conditions. The equations of flow derived for parallel drains are equally applicable to a single drain because
of symmetry provided, the distance to the divide where dh/dx = 0 can be accurately determined or
approximated with fair accuracy.
Flow to parallel drains, situated in more or less horizontal watertable area or where watertable slope is
negligibly small, is from uniform vertical recharge. However, there are special drains such as used for
intercepting seepage from the line sources or de-watering sloping lands, where, this assumption is not
fulfilled valid and thus has to be dealt with separately. Steady and non-steady state drainage equations
dealing with various situations have been attempted derived by many authors scientists and are discussed in
the following sections along with their limitations.
The major problem in drainage design is to find a suitable drain spacing or watertable lowering to achieve
desired watertable control under the known hydrologic conditions such as recharge rate, hydraulic
conductivity, etc. Therefore, most of the drainage equations are given in a manner, which enable their use
for determining the drain spacing L or the fall in watertable h.
Steady State Drainage Equations
Donnan Equation
Consider fully penetrating parallel drains in an unconfined aquifer, which is isotropic, and homogeneous
(Figure 3.1). If q is the vertical recharge per unit area, K the hydraulic conductivity and assuming that
Dupuit assumption is valid (i.e. h is very small than H and the flow can be considered horizontal and uni-
directional), then the flow into the drain per unit length (qx) is given by equation (3.1):
Figure 3.1: Fully Penetrating Parallel Drains in an Isotropic, Homogeneous and Unconfined Aquifer
35
q x = Ky (dy/dx) (3.1)
L
also, q x = q( x) , Inserting value of q x ,
2
L
K.y (dy / dx) = q ( x)
2
Ky dy = q . L / 2 . dx - q.x.dx (3.2)
Now for x = 0; y = D ; and x = 1 / 2; y=H
Integrating equation (3.2) in the limits:
y=H x=L/2
K.

y=D
y . dy = q .

x=0
L / 2 . dx - xdx
K / 2. (H 2 D 2 ) = qL2 / 4 qL2 / 8
K / 2. (H 2 D 2 ) = qL2 / 8
or,
L2 = 4K . ( H 2 - D2) / q (3.3)
where:
H is the saturated thickness and D is depth of barrier below water level in the drain. As
head drop h is generally small the equation (3.3) sometimes can also be arranged as
under:
L2 = 4K.(H 2 D 2 ) / q = 4K.(H + D)(H D) / q

(3.4)
= 8K.(D + h / 2)h / q = 8K D h / q
where:
D is the average saturated thickness and thus KD is the average transmisivity of the
aquifer. The equation (3.3) known as Donnan equation12 was also derived by Hooghoudt
and can be rearranged as:
q = 4K.(H 2 D2 ) / L2 = 4K.(2D + h)h / L2
(3.5)
= 8KDh / L2 + 4Kh2 / L2 = q1 + q 2
If D = 0 i.e. drain is on the barrier than 4Kh2/L2 represents the horizontal flow above the
drain level; when h is small the second term 4Kh2/L2 becomes negligible and 8KDh/L2
would represent the horizontal flow below the drain. Consequently, the equation (3.5) can
be used to determine the flow contribution from part of aquifer below the drain level and
that above it. The relative contribution from each would be:
q1 8KD
= = 2D / h (3.6)
q2 4Kh
Separation of flow from above and below the drain water level can also be used to
determine drain flow from two layered soils with interface at the drain level. If K1and
K2 are the hydraulic conductivitys of layers above and below the drain water level then:
8 K2 Dh + 4 K1 h2
q = (3.7)
L2

Donnan equation is derived for fully penetrating ditches reaching the impermeable layer and the groundwater
flow is largely horizontal. However, where the depth to barrier is less than twice the drain depth and where
open ditches or drains or drains with a sand gravel envelopes or porous trench back fill materials are used,
slight convergence of flow at the drains can also be ignored. For application of this equation the depth to
36
barrier must be known, soils should be homogeneous or if there are two layered soils then there interface
needs to be at the drain water level.
Hooghoudt Equation
If drains do not reach the impervious layer, or vertically walled drains are replaced by pipe drains, then the
flow lines will not be parallel and horizontal and will converge towards the drain (Figure 3.2). The Dupuit
assumption being no longer valid, the flow would consist of vertical, horizontal and radial flow components.
Vertical Flow
Radial Flow
Horizental Flow
Figure 3.2: Flow to Pipe Drain, not Reaching Impervious Floor
Hooghoudt30 derived an equation for head loss into tile drain situated at the top of an infinitely deep, uniform,
artesian aquifer. Tile drain in this case receives its flow from uniform upward recharge from the artesian
aquifer. Because of hydraulic similarity, it can be applied to the tile drain located at the top of a deep
unconfined aquifer recharged by a steady infiltration rate provided, the watertable is nearly flat and the
application rate is small, compared to the hydraulic conductivity of the aquifer.
The head loss h (neglecting flow above the drain level) due to horizontal and radial flow below the drain
level is given by the equation:
h = qL / K . F H (3.8)
where:
2
F H = [(L - D 2 ) / 8DL] + 1 / . ln (D / r o 2 ) + f(D, L) (3.9)
and f(D,L) a function of D and L, generally small compared with other terms in the equation and
therefore, usually ignored.
Instead of working with equations (3.8) and (3.9) Hooghoudt considered it more practicable to have a
formula similar to the equations for ditches reaching the impervious layer. To account for extra resistance
caused by radial flow, he introduced a reduction of the depth D to a smaller equivalent depth d. By so
doing, the flow pattern is replaced by a model with horizontal flow only (Figure 3.3).
Thus the Hooghoudt equation, for drains not reaching impervious bottom, and adding flow component above
the drain level is given as:
8Kdh 4 Kh2
q = 2
+ (3.10)
L L2
37
Figure 3.3: Concept of the Actual and Equivalent Depth to Transform a Combination of Horizontal and
Radial Flow
Comparing the flow in fully penetrating ditch below the drain water level with partially penetrated drain, the
value of equivalent depth d can be determined as under:
Kh
q = 8Kdh / L2 =
LFH
L
or d =
8FH (3.11)
Equation (3.9) can be further analyzed as under:
qL
h= F
K H
now:
2
L-D 2 1 D
FH = + ln
8DL p ro 2
Inserting value of FH and rearranging;
qL (L - D 2 ) 2 1 D
h = + ln
K 8DL r o 2
or
8KDh Khp
q = +
( ) (3.12)
2 D
L-D 2 L. ln
ro 2
Comparing equation (3.12) and (3.5) it is apparent that the horizontal resistance has been considered over
length (L - D 2 ) and radial resistance on remaining length. To separate head drop due to horizontal and
radial flow below drain level the equation (3.9) can be written as:
FH = Fh + Fr
qL qL
h= Fh + Fr = h h + h r
K K
38
Thus the total drop in head is the sum of the head drop due to radial and horizontal flow. In order to use the
Hooghoudt equation, d the equivalent depth is to be determined which in turn is dependent upon L, D
and ro the radius of drain. The use of this formula for design purpose is rather complicated because the
thickness of equivalent layer d is not given explicitly but as a function of drain spacing. For this reason one
has to apply the method of trail and error for computation of the spacing. The value of equivalent depth d
for ro = 0.1m, and D and L in metres is given in Table 3.1. In case of pipe drains flowing half full and
application to open drains the value of r is given by u/, where u is the wetted perimeter. Referring to
Table 3.1 it may be seen that value of d increases with D until D=L/4. For larger values of D the
equivalent depth d remains approximately constant. Apparently the flow pattern is then not affected by
depth of impermeable layer. For values of ro other than 0.1m, d can be calculated as explained below:
L L/8
d = =
8 FH 1 D
(L - D 2 )2 + ln
r o 2
say
D = 5m
ro = 0.1m
L = 30m
then:
d = (30/8)/[(30-7.2)2 / (8530) + 1/. ln (5/0.1 2 )
= 3.75/(0.44 + 1.13) = 2.39
which is the same as given in Table 3.1. If D is very small compared to L, the horizontal resistance
predominates and radial resistance becomes negligible and the Hooghoudt equation reduces to:
39
qL2
h = (3.13)
8KD
If on the other hand D=L/2 then the horizontal resistance would reduce to zero. In practice the horizontal
resistance may already be negligible if D>L/4. For purely radial flow Hooghoudt derived the following
equation47:
L L
h = q K ln ( ) (3.14)
u
where: u is wetted perimeter (ro).
Hooghoudt equation is an improvement on Donnan equation as it can also be used for tube drains not
reaching impervious barrier. The soil in this case has been considered homogenous and isotropic however, it
can be applied to two layered soils also which have interface at drain level and are homogeneous and
isotropic. If the flow above the drain is neglected i.e. q = 8Kdh/L2, then h needs to be small. Also, in case
of two layered soil the effect of hydraulic conductivity of upper layer on drain spacing is much less
pronounced as compared to that of the lower layer. However, when D and K2 are small and h and K1
are large then the effect of K1 may become very important. Nomogram of Hooghoudt equation, to simplify
its use and avoid labourious trial and error process, is given in Fig.3.4.
The value of ro used is 0.1m; the reason being that the variation that occur in tile drain size is relatively
slight and therefore, have little effect on calculated drain spacing. The Nomogram for practical reasons have
been split into two parts i.e. one for values of L between 5-25 m Graph A and other for L values 10-100m.
Graph to use the Nomogram, calculate values of 8K2h/q and 4K1h2/q and join these points with a straight
line. Read the spacing at the point of intersection of this line and the line of D. Nomogram in Figure 3.5
can be used to solve equation (3.14) for purely radial flow i.e. D>L/4.
Kirkham Equation
Kirkham39 developed an analytical solution for drains not reaching impervious barrier similar to Hooghoudt
if flow above the drain is ignored. Kirkams solution can be written as
L
h = q . Fk (3.15)
K
where:
1 2 ro 2 h
) Coth

Fk= In

L
r o
+
1

( Cos
L
Cos
L
1 ]
n= 1
Values of Fk, are given in Table 3.2. Wesseling78 found that values of FH and Fk are quite close to each
other and therefore, give almost identical result.
40
Figure 3.4: Nomogram of Hooghoudt Equation
Table 3.2 Value of FK According to Toksoz and Kirkham

L/D 100 50 25 12.5 6.25 3.12 1.5625 0.78125
D/2ro
8129 - - - - - - - 2.654
4096 - - - - - - 2.65 2.43
2048 - - - - - 2.66 2.43 2.21
1024 - - - - 2.84 2.45 2.21 1.99
215 - - - 3.40 2.63 2.23 1.99 1.76
256 - - 4.76 3.19 2.40 2.01 1.76 1.54
128 - 7.64 4.23 2.96 2.19 1.78 1.54 1.32
64 13.67 7.43 4.31 2.74 1.96 1.57 1.32 1.10
32 13.47 7.21 4.09 2.52 1.74 1.35 1.10 0.88
16 13.27 6.99 3.86 2.30 1.52 1.13 0.88 0.66
8 13.02 6.76 3.64 2.08 1.30 0.90 0.66 0.44
4 12.79 6.54 3.42 1.86 1.08 0.68 0.44 -
2 12.57 6.32 3.20 1.63 0.85 0.46 - -
1 12.33 6.08 2.95 1.40 2.62 - - -
0.5 12.03 5.77 2.66 1.11 - - - -
0.25 11.25 5.29 2.20 - - - - -
In a later paper Kirkham40 observed that flow above the drain neglected earlier can be accounted. The
hydraulic head should be multiplied by (1-q/k)-1.
41
L(m)
100 140 200 300 400 500
h
q
20
K(m/day)
30
10
40
qL L
h ln( ) 8
TLK u
6 50
5
60
4
50 70 90 3 70
80
2
90
100
L(m) 1.0
`
0.8
150
20 30 40 0.6
0.5 200
0.4
0.3
300
0.2 400
u 0.1
500
600
700
.3
L 800
L ln
u 900
.6
1000
1.5
1500
5 2000
10
Figure 3.5: Nomogram to Determine Drain Spacing with Hooghoudt Equation for Impermeable
Layer at a Depth > L/4
42
The equation (3.15) would then change to:

qL Fk L. Fk
h = . = (3.16)
Kb q Kb K
1- - b
Ka q Ka
h Kb K L
or, . - b = . Fk
D q Ka D
where Ka is the hydraulic conductivity above drain level and Kb below that drain level boundary between
two layers must coincide with drain level (Fig 3.6).
Figure 3.6: Two Dimensional Flow Pattern. Kirkham (1958, 1960)
Figure 3.7 is a Nomogram to determine drain spacing with equation (3.16).
Ernst Equation
Hooghoudt and Kirkham equations can be used for two layered soils provided drain level must coincide with
boundary between two layers, which may not be always possible. Ernst21 derived an equation to determine
the spacing in two-layered soils for all conditions. He divided the flow into vertical, horizontal and radial,
and the total hydraulic head h therefore, would be sum of individual heads of the three flows considered:
h = hv + hh + hr
Dv qL2 qL a. Dr (3.17)
=q + + ln
K v 8(KD ) h K r u
where:
h = total hydraulic head or watertable height above drain level mid point (m);
q = drain discharge rate per unit surface area (m/day);
L = drain spacing (m);
Kr = hydraulic conductivity in the layer with radial flow (m/day);
Kv = hydraulic conductivity for vertical flow (m/day);
Dv = thickness of layer over which vertical flow is considered (m);
43
Dr = thickness of layer in which radial flow is considered (m);

(KD)h = transmissivity of the soil layers through which horizontal flow is considered (m2/day);
u = wetted perimeter of the drain (m); and
a = geometry factor for radial flow depending on the flow conditions.
h Kb Kb

D q K a
L h Kb K b
=
D Fk D q K a
d
2r0
L
D
Figure 3.7: Nomogram for the Determination of Drain Spacing (Modified After Toksoz and Kirkham)
44
The values for Dv, (KD)h, Dr, a, and u are to be determined in accordance with the soil profile and the
relative position and size of the drains. The appropriate values are derived from the following data, which
characterize the specified drainage conditions, namely:
D1 = average thickness below the watertable of the upper layer with permeability K1;
D2 = thickness of the lower layer with permeability K2;
Do = thickness below drain level of the layer in which the drain is located;
h = watertable height above drain level at midpoint; and
y = water depth in the drain; for a pipe drain y = o.
The geometry of the flow and the location of drain in homogenous and two layers soil considered are given
in Figure 3.8. Looking into the flow models it will be seen that vertical flow is assumed to occur between the
maximum watertable midway between the drains and the drain bottom. Horizontal flow occurs over the
average saturated thickness of the aquifer and (KD)h = K1D1 + K2D2. If impervious layer is at infinite depth
than K2D2 would be infinite and horizontal resistance would approach zero. In order to prevent this if the
impermeable layer is deeper than L/4, then the effective aquifer thickness is restricted to L/4. Radial flow is
assumed to take place only in the layer below drain level.
V E R T IC A L h
Dr 1 /2 h
y
K 1 R A D IA L
D h= D l D h= D 0
K2
H O R IZ N T A L
k1
IM P E R V I
OUS
A B
D 1/
Dr 2h
l h h
K1 Dr
K2 y Dh Dh Dr D1 y
Dr
D2 =D =D
K1
0 D2 K2
0
C D
Figure 3.8: A - Geometry of two dimensional flow towards drain in two layers soil, B - Geometry for
homogenous soil, C - Geometry for homogenous soil, D - Geometry for two layers soil with drain
in upper layer
For homogenous soil (i.e. a=1) equation (3.17) reduces to:

q(y + h) qL2 qL
h = + + ln Do / u (3.18)
K1 8 K1 D1 K1
In homogenous soil the vertical resistance is usually small. Also, in most practical cases h << Do, and D1
reduces to Do thereby neglecting the horizontal flow through the layers above the drain level.
If the drains are situated in the lower layer of a two layered soil and K1 < K2, the vertical resistance in lower
layer (K2) can be neglected against that in the upper one. From Figure 3.8c it can be seen that the thickness
of the layer over which vertical flow must be considered equals Dv = 2D1. For horizontal flow component in
this case (KD)n = K1 D1 + K2 D2. Since K1 < K2 and D1 < D2, the first term is usually neglected and (KD)h
= K2 D2. Radial flow is taken into account over the layer Dr = D0. The equation thus reduces to:
q2 D1 qL2 qL
h = + + ln Do / u (3.19)
K1 8 K2 D2 K2
45
If the drain is entirely in the upper layer of a two-layered soil (Figure 3.8d) the following conditions must be
discerned with respect to the geometry factor a.
I. K2 > 20K1
The geometry factor a = 4 and equation becomes:

q(y + h) qL2 qL
h = + + ( ).ln 4Do / u (3.20)
K1 8( K1 D1 + K2 D2) K

II. O. 1K, <K2 <20 K1
The geometry factor a for this range has to be determined from the Nomogram given in Figure 3.9, and to
be introduced into the equation (3.17).
III. O.1K1 > K2
The geometry factor is a=1. The lower layer can be considered impervious and the case reduces to that of
homogeneous soil underlain by impervious boundary and equation (3.18) is applicable. For above equations
u is calculated as under:
a) For Ditches
u = b + 2y s2 + 1
where: b = bottom width of the ditch;

y = water depth in the ditch; and
s = side slope of the ditch (horizontal or vertical).
b) For Pipe Drains
u = b + 2 .( 2ro)
where:
b = width of trench; and ro = radius of drain.
If filter material is used, it is advisable to replace 2ro by the thickness of the filter. Drain spacing
may be calculated directly or with the aid of the Nomograms given in Figures 3.9 and 3.10. Various
steps in the process are as under:
Step 1
a) Check the soil profile. If the soil is homogeneous or if the depth of the layer in which the drain
will be located is more than L/4, (below the drain level) then use equation (3.18) or Nomogram
as detailed hereafter; if not go to step- 2.
If soil is homogeneous but the barrier is less than L/4 below the drain level, the vertical resistance
(hr) is small and neglected. The equation (3.18) for homogeneous condition (a=1) reduces to;
qL2 qL
h = + ln Do / u (3.21)
8 K1 D1 K
b) Calculate K1 D1, h/q, Do/u and R i.e. (1/K . lnDo/u). As the Nomogram given in Figure
3.10 neglects hv, therefore, for case D>L/4, h/q may be calculated as given in step 2. Plot
KD and h/q and join by straight line and read the spacing against the intersection point with
R.
c) If value of h/q or KD is beyond the Nomogram, then divide both by a convenient number
and determine spacing L which after multiplying with the same number would give the
correct spacing.
d) If R is greater than given in Nomogram, divide R and h/q by a convenient number and
multiply KD by the same number and use the graph to find L.
Step 2
If soil is two layered with interface below drain level then, calculate the geometry factor and use the relevant
equation depending upon ratio of K1 and K2. The Nomogram given in Figure 3.10 can be used as explained
already except that h, is to be used for calculating h/q. The h is given by the equation:
h = h hv = h qDv / Kv
If the depth of interface below drain level is more than L/4 then the effect of second layer on drain spacing
becomes negligible and homogeneous soil equation can be used. The vertical resistance hv is calculated and
h determined, which then reduces to the equation:
46
qL2 qL
h = h - h v = + ln Do / u (3.22)
8 KD1 K1
D2/Do=32
100
100
16
50
50
40
40
30 K1 Do 30
20
20
D2
K2 D2
15
15
8
10
10
8
8
7
6
6
5
5
4
4
4
3
3
2.5
2.5
2
2
1.75
1.75
1.5
1.5
1.25
1.25
0.5
1 aD o
Wr =
0.25
In
k 1 u
1.0 U=Wetted perimeter 1.0
K2/K1
01
01
0.1 0.2 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 20 30 40 50
0.3
Figure 3.9: Monograph for Determination of Geometry Factor a
47
h
120 100 70 60 50 q
L= KD
0
3
2.6 0
2
1.6 qL qL D0 0
30 h ln
25
1.2
1
8 kD n r u 0
20
0
15.0 0.8
(Formula Eanst ) 220
10.0 45 40 35 30
9.0
210
8.0
7.0
200
6.0
190
5.0
180
4.0 170
1 D
3.0 Wr ln 0
kr u
160
2.8 25 20 15 10
2.6 150
2.4 140
l D
2.2 Rf ln 0
nk u 130
2.0 120
100
1.9 h
300
1.8 q 110
1.7 5 12 200 L 68m 100
1.6
5 200 90
12 L 34m
1.5 2 2 80
1.4 L 2 X 34 68m 70
60
1.3 Wr 3
1.2
5 12 200 L 68m
50
3
1.1 50
10 0.6 100 68m
40
D0 1 2
2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 12 16 20 30 40 60 80 30
1.0
u 1
2 20
1 aD
In
u 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 10
Figure 3.10: Monogram for Calculation of Drain Spacing with Ernst Equation if Do< L
Homogeneous Anisotropic Layered Soils

Hooghoudts mathematical expression, assuming flow above the drain as negligible, is given by the equation
(3.12):
(L - D 2 )2 1 D 2
h = qL/K [ + ( ln )]
8DL ro
where, first part gives the horizontal resistance and the second radial flow resistance loss. If D = L/ 2,
then the horizontal resistance loss is zero. In practice, however, if D is more than L/5, the horizontal
resistance loss becomes negligible and the equation for radial flow loss takes the forms:
48
qL L
h = . ln
K r o
Lindenberg47 starting from this basic equation proceeded to develop an equation for two layered an-isotropic
soil; the drain being situated in the upper layer which is much less permeable than the lower layer (Figure
3.6). Because, of low hydraulic conductivity of upper layer, he assumed that large percentage of loss (75%)
occurs in the upper layer. He split the equation into two components representing the radial flow towards the
drain in the upper and lower layer by assuming a radius of division rd between the two flow zones, which
was related to the depth of the upper layer. The equation thus takes the form:
qL L r
h = ln + ln d
K rd ro
where:
h = potential difference or hydraulic head in metres;
q =Drainage coefficient in m/day;
L =Drain spacing in meters;
K =Hydraulic conductivity in m/day;
rd = radius of equipotential plan at a distance of rd meters from the centre of drain; and
ro =radius of drain (wet perimeter of drain divided by .
It was then possible to consider the two layers individually and to calculate the head loss from the mid point
between drains to the equipotential plane at the radius of division and from the radius of the division to the
drain radius, transforming in each case the requisite section of transmission medium from its an-isotropic
condition to its equivalent isotropic transmission medium. For flow in the lower layer, the transformed value
of rd becomes (a1 + a2) d/2, and for the upper layer the transformed value of rd is d, and that of
ro = U/,
where:
d = depth of upper layer below tile drains;
a1= anisotropy of upper layer K x / K y ;
a2 = anisotropy of lower layer K h K v ; and
U = the distorted effective wetted perimeter of the tile drain and its filter after
transformation.
m 0.75m
kX
U P P E R LA Y E R (K 2 )
g
kY
kH
D E E P E R LA Y E R (K 1 )
kV
Figure 3.11: Flow Towards Drain in Two Layered an-Isotropic Soil
49
The equation can then be rewritten as:
1 2L 1 d a1
h = qL / ln + ln
K h K v d (a 1 + a 2 ) KxKy H

h KhKv Kh Kv d a1 2
- ln L = ln + ln
qL Kx Ky U d(a1 + a 2 )
Re-arranging, following form of equation was adopted:

For easy application of the design equation it has been plotted in the form of a design chart with four
variables. The design equation has been rendered as:
B
A C
In L = In
L D
thus
h KhKv KhKv
A = ; B =
q KxKy
d
C = a1d / U ; D = (a 1 + a 2 )
2
Upper layer
Kx = horizontal permeability (m/day)
Ky = Vertical permeability (m/day)
Lower layer:
Kh= Horizontal permeability (m/day); and
Kv= Vertical permeability (m/day).
The chart is in the form of a plot of L versus log10CB/D maximum spacing will occur when A is
maximum and CB/D a minimum and vice-versa. The likely range of A in consistent units of feet and days
is from 2x103 to 1x105 and the greatest likely range of log10CB/D is from 1.1 to 300. The chart therefore,
covers the range, A = 1x103 to 2x105 and log10CB/D = 0.1 to 1000. Table (3.3) shows the values of A,
log10CB/D and the calculated values of spacing which have been used to plot the graphs given in Figure 3.12.
Table 3.3: Drain Spacing for Chart Plotting87
B
A Log10C /D Spacing -L (ft) A Log10 CB/D Spacing -L( ft)
4
1 x 103
0.10 184 2x10 1.00 2040
1.00 137 4.00 1225
38 10.00 678
10.00 100.00 85
331
2 x 103
0.10 256 4x104 4.00 2360
1.00 73 10.00 1320
10.00 100.00 170
1000.00 17
4 x 103 604
0.10 472 6x104 10.00 1960
1.00 143 100.00 254
10,00 17 1000.00 26
100.00
6 x 103 858
0.10 680 8x104 10.00 2590
1.00 212 100.00 338
10.00 26 1000.00 35
100.00
1105
0.10 880 1x105 10.00 3210
8 x 103
1.00 517 100.00 424
4.00 280 1000.00 43
10.00 34
100.00
50
1x104 1.00 1080 2x105 10.00 8300

4.00 640 100.00 844
10.00 347 1000.00 87
100.00 43
51
Example
To use the chart, the variables, A, B, C and D have first to be calculated from the original data and then put in
the form A and log10CB/D. These values are used to determine the spacing of the drain from Figure 3.12.
In calculating C, the term U or tile wetted perimeter enters the equation. This changes with anisotropy and
is in fact the perimeter of an ellipse with minor diameter equal to the tile effective diameter and major
diameter equal to that quantity times a2 where a2 is the anisotropy ratio of the encapsulating soil. Table 3.4
shows the values of U generated by different anisotropic values for a tile drain effective diameter of 0.6 feet.
Table 3.4: Variation of U With Anisotropy
(Tile Drain Effective Diameter = 0.6 feet)
A2 U
1 1.88
4 2.90
9 3.98
16 5.16
25 6.30
Using the typical data below:
q = 1 x 10-2 feet per day;
Kx = 9.0 feet per day;
Ky = 1.0 feet per day :. a1 = 9;
Kh = 50.0 feet per day
Kv = 2.0 feet per day :. a2 = 25 ;
d = 15.0 feet; and
U = 4.0 feet.
If tile depth is to be 7.0 feet and the watertable at 5.0 feet then h = 2 feet.
p 2.0 50 2 50 2
A = = 6.28x 103 ; B = = 3.333;
1x 10-2 9 1
p 15 9 p 15
C = = 35.3 ; D = ( 9 + 25) = 188.33
4.0 2
3.333 CB CB
C B = 35.33 = 1.447 105 ; = 7.68x 102 ; log10 = 2.587
D D
Entering the chart, a section of which is illustrated in Figure 3.12 indicates that the drain spacing L should be
505 feet.
52
k
a
x
1
k
v
kh
a2
kv
d Kx d Kx Kh
h KnKy C= D= +
A= KhKv B= u Ky 2 Ky Kv
a KxKy
1000
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 20 30 40 50 60 80 100
Figure 3.12: Graph for Determining Drain Spacing with Lindenberghs Method
53
Non-Steady State Drainage Equations

In steady state drainage equations it was assumed that there is a uniform constant recharge from the top and it
has attained a balance with the discharge being received in the drain. In areas with periodic irrigation or high
intensity rainfall, these assumptions are no longer valid and flow is primarily non-steady state. The problem
of non-steady state flow towards drain has been attempted by various research workers and is discussed in
the following:
Glover - Dumm Equation

One dimensional non-steady state equation for an isotropic and homogeneous aquifer, under Dupuit
assumption is given when recharge rate is zero is when recharge rate is zero is given by the equation.
d2 h dh
KD . 2
= S. (3.23)
dx dt
where:
KD = transmissivity of the aquifer (m2/day);
h = hydraulic head as function of x and t (m);
x = horizontal distance from a reference point e.g., ditch.;
t = time (days); and
s = drainable pore space (dimension less, m/m).
Dumm16 assumed that a fully penetrating ditch, with initial watertable as horizontal, is instantaneously
recharged and rises uniformly to a height h. After cessation of recharge the water level in the drain falls
instantaneously to original level and the watertable takes the shape of parabola. The boundary conditions
are:
t = 0, h = h; 0 < x < L (Initial horizontal watertable)
t > 0, h = 0; x = 0; x = L (Water level in the drain at zero i.e. in drain)
Solution obtained of equation (3.23) is given as under:

nx

4 ho 1 -n 2 t
h (x,t) - e sin . (3.24)
n L
n=1,-3,5
2 KD
=
S L2 (reaction factor day-1)
For; x = L/2, i.e. mid point of drains, for head at any time t the equation reduces to:

4 ho 1 -n 2 t
ht =

n =1,-3,5 n
e . (3.25)
If ht< 0.2, the value of term n = -3 & 5 will be small and can be neglected and the equation reduces to:
h t = 1.27 h o e-t . (3.26)
Dumm17 assuming initial watertable as fourth degree parabola (based on field studies) modified the equation
as:
h t = 1.16 h o e - t . (3.27)
The two equations thus differ only in the initial constant because of change in shape factor. Inserting value
of :
h = 1.16 h o e-KDt /SL
ln h = 1.16h o + ( KDt / SL)
or ,
54
2 KDt/ L2 = ln(1.16 ho /h)

2 2 KDt/
L =
( ln 1.16 ho /h)
or,
1/2 -1/2
Kdt 1.16 h o
L = ln . (3.28)
S h t
Equation (3.28) is known as the Glover-Dumm equation. To apply this equation to ditches not reaching
impermeable layer, D is replaced by Hooghoudt equivalent depth d and the equation changes to:
= Kd/SL
and,
1/2 -1/2
Kdt 1.16 h o
L = ln (3.29)
S h t
For drains on barrier equation (3.28) would be as under:

1/2 -1/2
KHt 1.16 H
L = ln (3.30)
S Z
To account for the average horizontal flow above drain level when h is large and D is small or to apply
steady state equations, it may be required to compute a time average hydraulic head h which can be
obtained as:
o o
1.16
- t
h = 1/t h . dt = 1/t ho e . dt
t t (3.31)
1.16 h o 1.16 h o -h t
= (1 - e t ) =
t ln(1.16 h o /h t )
The equation (3.28) therefore, would change to:

1/2
K(Dt h /2)t
L =
(1.16 h o /h t )
- 1/2
USBR has assumed h/2 as ho/2 and the above equation takes the shape:
L = (K D t/S )1/2 . (1.16 h o /h t )-1/2 (3.32)
where:
D = (D + h o / 2)
Figure 3.13 is based on equation (3.30) and (3.32). The derivation of the equations assumes that D is large
as compared to h. In verifying the applicability of the figure it is indicated that when D/ho < 0.10 the
spacing computation should be made as if the drain is located on the barrier; and when D/ho > 0.80 the
computations should be made as if the drain is located above the barrier. For cases D/ho between 0.1 and
0.8 curves in between the two curves can be drawn, however, that refinement in practical application is
unnecessary and either curve can be used.
It will be seen that the formula is not based on the drainage coefficient q but takes into account the desired
fall of watertable over a given period of time. Application of this equation is given in Chapter V. The
discharge in a drain at time t, when expressed for unit surface area, can be determined as:
55
KD
q1 = - 2 . (dh / dx ) x=0
L
Differentiating equation (3.24) with respect to x and putting x=0;
q t = 8 / 2 . R1
n=1,3,5
e-nt
where:
Ri = Instantaneous recharge per unit surface area. Neglecting all but first term:
q t = 8 / 2 . . R i e -t
2 Kd
R i = ho . S; and ho = h t . / 4 e-t ; and =
SL2 (3.33)
2Kd
qt = ht
L2
G ro u n d S u r fa c e
ho
G ro u n d S u rfa c e
h
z
D
D
h
B a r r ie r
L
D R A IN A B O V E B A R R IE R D R A IN O N B A R R IE R
h O a n d H m id p o in t w a te r ta b le h e ig h t o f b e g in n n in g
o f a n y d r a in -o u t p o in t.
h a n d Z m id p o in t w a t e r ta b le h e ig h t a t e n d o f a n y
d r a in -o u t p e r io d
L = D r a in s p a c in g
D = d is t a n c e fr o m d r a in t o b a r r ie r
D -= d + y o /2 a v e r a g e flo w d e p t h
K = h y d r a u lic c o n d u c tiv ity in flo w z o n e
s = S p e c ific y ie ld in z o n e o f w a te r ta b le flu c a tio n
(p e r c e n t b y v o lu m e e x p r e s s e d a s d e c im a l fr a c t io n )
t= d r a in o u t tim e p e r io d
D R A IN O N B A R R IE R
D R A IN A B O V E
B A R R IE R
0 .0 0 1 0 .0 1 0 .1 1 .0 1 0 .0
Figure 3.13: Curves for Calculating Drain Spacing Using Transient Flow Theory
56
Kraijenhoff - Massland Equation

In this equation the recharge has been considered constant over any time period t instead of instantaneous
recharge assumed in Dumm equation. The boundary conditions are:
h = o; for t = o and o < x <L.
(initial horizontal watertable at drain level at t = o)
h = o; for t > o and x = o, x = L (Water in drain remains at initial level)
R = Constant; for t > o (Constant recharge);
For above boundary conditions the height of the watertable midway between parallel drains (x=L/2) at any
time is given by the equation:

4 R 1 2 t/ j
ht = j (1 - e-n ) . (3.34)
S n 3
n=1,-3,5
where:
j = SL2/ KD = 1/ called reservoir coefficient.
The discharge intensity qt is given by the equation:

8 1 2t / j
qt = 2
R. 2
(1- e- n ) (3.35)
n=1,3,5
n
To account for the convergence of stream lines in the vicinity of drains not reaching impermeable layer D is
replaced by d of Hooghoudt and;
j = SL/ KD
Equation (3.34 and 3.35) can be written as:

R
ht = . j . ct (3.36)
S
where:

4 2
ct = 1 / n 3 (1 - e -n t / j)

n = 1 ,- 3 ,5
(3.37)
qt = Rgt
where:

8 2 t/ j
gt = 1 / n2 (1- e-n )

n=1,3,5
Table 3.5 gives the values of ct and gt for various values of t/j for use in this method. The application of
steady and non-steady state drainage equations discussed is demonstrated by examples in the following
section.
Application of Drainage Equation

Many steady and non-steady equations are available in literature for determining drain spacing, some of
which more often used have been given here. These equations can be solved either by trial and error method
or through use of Nomograms. Use of various equations is explained with the following examples.
57
Table 3.5: ct and gt Coefficients for the D.A. Kraijenhoff van de Leur
Massland Equation
t/j gt ct t/j gt ct t/j gt ct
0.01 0.072 0.010 0.48 0.497 0.447 1.10 0.730 0.809
0.02 0.102 0.020 0.50 0.507 0.463 1.15 0.743 0.830
0.03 0.125 0.030 0.52 0.518 0.477 1.20 0.756 0.850
0.04 0.143 0.039 0.54 0.528 0.492 1.25 0.767 0.869
0.05 0.161 0.049 0.56 0.537 0.507 1.30 0.779 0.887
0.06 0.176 0.060 0.58 0.546 0.521 1.35 0.790 0.903

0.07 0.190 0.070 0.60 0.554 0.535 1.40 0.800 0.920
0.08 0.203 0.080 0.62 0.563 0.549 1.45 0.810 0.935
0.09 0.215 0.090 0.64 0.572 0.563 1.50 0.819 0.950
0.10 0.227 0.100 0.66 0.580 0.576 1.55 0.828 0.966
0.12 0.249 0.120 0.68 0.588 0.588 1.60 0.836 0.977

0.14 0.269 0.139 0.70 0.597 0.602 1.65 0.844 0.989
0.16 0.288 0.159 0.72 0.605 0.614 1.70 0.852 1.002
0.18 0.305 0.179 0.74 0.612 0.627 1.75 0.859 1.012
0.20 0.321 0.199 0.76 0.620 0.638 1.80 0.866 1.023
0.22 0.337 0.218 0.78 0.628 0.650 1,85 0.872 1.033

0.24 0.352 0.238 0.80 0.636 0.661 1.90 0.879 1.044
0.26 0.367 0.257 0.82 0.643 0.672 1.95 0.885 1.052
0.28 0.380 0.275 0.84 0.650 0.683 2.00 0.890 1.061
0.30 0.393 0.294 0.86 0.657 0.695 2.10 0.901 1.078
0.32 0.406 0.312 0.88 0.663 0.706 2.20 0.910 1.093

0.34 0.419 0.329 0.90 0.670 0.717 2.30 0.919 1.107
0.36 0.430 0.347 0.92 0.677 0.727 2.40 0.927 1.118
0.38 0.442 0.364 0.94 0.689 0.737 3.00 0.960 1.171
0.40 0.454 0.381 0.96 0.689 0.746 4.00 0.0985 1.210
0.42 0.465 0.398 0.98 0.696 0.756 5.00 0.995 1.226
0.44 0.476 0.415 1.00 0.702 0.765 1.000 /8=1.232
0.46 0.487 0.431 1.05 0.715 0.787 - - -
Hooghoudt Equation
Example: 1
Radius of drain (ro) = 0.1 m;
Depth of drain = 1.8m below NSL;
Depth of impermeable layer = 6.8m below NSL;
Hydraulic conductivity (K) = 0.8m/day; and
Recharge (q) = 2mm/day.
What drain spacing must be applied when an average watertable depth of 1.2m below NSL is to be
maintained.
8Kdh 4 Kh2
L2 = + = 1920d + 576
q q
Trial 1.
Take L, = 80m and from Table 3.1; d = 3.55m
Inserting: L2 = 7392 or L = 86m
Let L = 87 d = 3.63m
L2 = 7569 or L = 87m; which is close to the assumed value.
To use the Nomogram given in Figure 3.4 calculate

8Kh/q = 1920
4Kh2/q = 0576
Connect point 1920 on the left-hand side to point 576 on the right hand side. The point of intersection with
D=5m gives the drain spacing which is 88m. It will be seen that in this case the soil above and below the
drain is homogeneous. If it is a two layered soil and the drain is situated at the interface, the Hooghoudt
equation can still be used.
58
Example 2
Given:
q = 5mm/day;
h = 0.6m;
K2 = 1m/day;
K1 = 0.5m/day;
D = 3m; and
ro = 0.1m.
Calculations:
8K2h/q = 960
4K1h2/q = 145
Connect point 960 to 145 as discussed above. The point of intersection of this line and the line D=3 gives the
drain spacing of approximately 47.5m. The effect of impermeable layer on drain spacing can be immediately
ascertained from graph. If D = the spacing would be 69m. If this layer had been at 5m instead of 3m the
spacing would be 57m and for D =1 it would be 32m.
The effect of K factor can also be rapidly ascertained. For K1 = 1.0 m/day instead of 0.5m/day the spacing
for D = 3m would be 49m instead of 48m. But if K2 is 0.5m instead of 1m the spacing for D = 3m would be
34m instead of 48m. It is evident from the example that the depth of impermeable soil and the hydraulic
conductivity of layer below drain significantly affect the spacing.
Kirkham Equation
Example 3
Data of example 1 is used again here:
ro = 0.1m;
D = 5m;
q = 0.002m/day;
h = 0.6m; and
Ka.Kb = 0.8m/day.
In order to use the Nomogram, given in Figure 3.7, calculate
h Kb Kb 0.6 0.8
- = - 1 = 48
D q Ka 5 0.002

Fix this point on y axis and go in horizontal direction to cut D/2ro = 25 line and then move vertically down
to read L/D = 17. With D=5m, L=85m which is approximately the same as earlier determined. Kirkham
equation can also be used by trial and error with the values of Fk given in Table 3.2.
Trial I: Let
L = 60
D = 5
L/D = 12
D/2ro = 25
Fk = 2.4
qL .002 60
Then Fk = 2.4 = 0.36 , which is less than 0.6.
K 0.8
Trial II: Let
L = 90
D = 5
L/D = 18
Fk = 3.2
h = (.002/0.8) x 90 x 3.2 =.72
Trial III: Let

L = 85
D = 6
59
L/D = 17
Fk = 2.07
h = (.002/0.8) x 85 x 3 = 0.63;
which is close to actual value of 0.6
Ernst Equation
Example 4
In addition to data of example 1, use trench width of 0.25m and determine drain spacing since soil is uniform
use equation (3.18).
u = 0.25 + 4 x 0.1 = 0.65; neglecting vertical resistance
which is usually small in homogeneous soils:
qL2 qL D .002 L2 .002L 5

h = 0.6 = + ln o = + ln
8K D1 K u 8 0.8 5.30 0.8 0.65
- 0.8 0.64 + 4 0.03 300 - 0.8 6.05
= =
2 0.03 0.06
L = 87.5 m
To use the Nomogram given in Figure 3.10, calculate h/q = 0.6/.002 = 300 and KD = (D+h) = 0.8x5.3 =
4.2 m/day. As h/q goes out of scale, divide h/q and KD by 2. Connect KD = 2.1 to h/q = 150 and read
L = 44 at intersection with R = 0.8 calculated below:
1 Do 1 5
R = ln = ln = 0.8
K u 0.8 0.65
Multiply L with 2 which give the drain spacing as 88m.
Example 5
A soil consists of two distinct layers. For the upper layer K1 = 0.2 m/day and for the lower layer K2 = 2
m/day. The interface of the two layers is at a depth of 0.50 m below the bottom of the drain ditch. The
thickness of the lower layer to an impermeable layer D2 = 3m. The ditch has a bottom width of 50 cm, side
slope 1:1 and the water depth y = 30 cm. The hydraulic head is set at h = 1.20 m at a steady state
discharge of q = 10 mm/day.
From the above information:
Do = 0.5 + 0.3 = 0.8m;
D1 = 0.8 + x 1.2 = 1.4 m;
D2 = 3m; and
u = 0.5 + 2 x 0.3 ?2 = 1.35m.
Step I
Assume Do < L/4 and use equation (3.17)
Step II
Dv h+y 1.2 + 0.3

hv = q = q = 0.01 = 0.075m
Kv K1 0.2
h = h - h v = 1.2 - 0.075 = 1.125m
Step III
Since K2/K1 = 10 determine a the geometry factor from Figure 3.9. Go from point K2/K1 = 10 at
the X axis vertically upward to the line for D2/Do = 3/0.8 = 3.8 and read on Y axis a = 4.
60
(KD) = K1 D1 + K2 D2 = 0.2 1.4 + 2 3.0 = 6.3 m2 / day

1 aD 1 4 Do 1 4 0.8
R = ln o = ln = .ln = 1.37 days / m
K1 u K1 u 0.2 1.35
qL2 qL aD 0.01L2
h = 1.125 = + ln o = + 0.01 1.37L
8 (KD) K u 8 6.3
or,
0.2L + 13.7L - 1125 = 0
L = 48m
Since Do = 0.8m, the condition Do < L/4 assumed was correct. This example can also be solved with
Nomogram given in Figure 3.10.
h/q = 1.125/.01 = 112.5

KD = 6.3 m/day
R = 1.37 days/m
From Nomogram the drain spacing is 47m as per procedure already explained in example 4.
Example 6
Same data as of example (5) except that Do = 10m. Since it is likely that Do will be more than L/4, the
solution for a homogeneous soil given by equation (3.18) will be applied. This means that the second layer,
whatever its permeability or thickness, has no influence on the flow to the drains.
From example (5)
hv = 0.07 5m
h = 1.125 m
For a = 1. K1D1 = 0.2 x 10.6 = 2.1 m/day
Do = 10m; u = 1.35m
.01 L2 0.01L 10
1.125 = + . ln
8 2.1 0.2 1.35
from which L = 24 m; Do is more than L/4, therefore the assumption was correct.
Glover Dumm Equation

Example 7
Given:
K = 1 m/day;
ht = 0.3 m;
D = 7.7 m;
t = 10 days;
S = 0.05;
r = 0.1m; and
ho = 0.8m.
Solution:
1/2 -1/2
KDt ho
L = ln 1.16
S ht
Inserting values:
1/2 -1/2
1x7.7x10 1.16x0.8
L = ln
0.05 0.3
61
To apply correction for L = 116m and D = 7.7m from Table 3.1.

d = 5.05; Insert this value of D and make another trial which gives L = 94m; new d for L = 94 and D = 7.7
is = 4.7 which gives: L = 91m; new d = 4.62 which fairly close to the one in 2nd trial. The problem could
also be solved using Figure 3.7 also.
Example 8
Drain above the barrier.
Assume:
K = 1 foot per day;
D = 20 feet;
Depth to drain = 9 feet;
Water table at ground surface at t=0; and
Specific yield = 10 percent, and existing drains are 300 feet apart.
Determine:
Time required for the watertable to drop 5 feet below the ground surface.
Since the watertable is initially at the ground surface.
Ho = 9 feet;
D = D + ho/2 = 24.5 feet,
1/2
(1)(18.5)(30)
L = = 240 feet (second trial)
(0.096)(0.1)
d = 14.5 feet after convergence correction
D = d + ho/2 = 19 feet
h = 9 - 5 = 4 feet h/ho = 4/9 = 0.444
From Figure 3.13; KD t/SL = 0.096; when h/ho = 0.444

Solving the parameter KD t/SL = 0.096 for t:
0.096 SL2 0.096 (0.1) (300) 2
t = = = 45.5 days
KD (1)(19)
From the above calculations, the watertable will drop 5 feet below the ground surface in about 45 days.
Example 9
Using example 8, determine the drain spacing to drop the watertable 5 feet below the ground surface in 30
days.
Using a similar approach, KD t/SL = 0.096, when h/ho = 0.444
KD t (1)(24.5)(30)
Then, L = = 1 / 2 = 277 feet (un - corrected for convergence)
0.096S (0.096)(0.1)
From Table 3.1; d = 14 feet and D = d+ho/2 = 18.5 feet.

From Table 3.1; d=13.5 feet and D = 18.0 feet.
1/2
(1)(18.5)(30)
L = = 237feet (corrected drain spacing)
(0.096)(0.1)
A drain spacing of 237 feet is required to lower the watertable 5 feet below the ground surface in 30 days.
Kraijenhoff Equation
In contrast to instantaneous recharge in Glover Dumm equation, this is based on constant recharge and it can
be used to predict the height of the watertable and drain discharge over a period of time. Using theorem of
super position this equation can be used for intermittent recharge situation also.
Example 10
Determine watertable height ht and discharge qt for the following data:
j = 5 days; q = 10 mm/day S =.04
62
Solution:
Calculate t/j for various values of t and determine ct and gt from the Table 3.5 and calculate ht and
qt by equations (3.36 & 3.37) respectively as shown in the following table:
Time t/j ct gt ht qt
1/6 0.033 0.033 0.131 0.041 0.00131
1/3 0.067 0.67 0.184 0.084 0.00184
0.100 0.100 0.277 0.125 0.00227
2/3 0.133 0.133 0.262 0.166 0.00262
5/6 0.166 0.166 0.292 0.208 0.00292
1 0.200 0.199 0.321 0.249 0.00321
2 0.400 0.381 0.454 0.476 0.00454
3 0.600 0.535 0.554 0.669 0.00554
4 0.800 0.661 0.636 0.827 0.00636
5 1.000 0.765 0.702 0.956 0.00702
1.232 1.000 1.540 0.01000
63
FIELD TESTS AND ANALYSIS
Field tests and measurements are generally required which include measurement of for the drainage
investigation and design in-place of hydraulic conductivity, infiltration rates and installation of observation
holes and piezometer for measuring watertable and piezometric levels. A brief description of procedures and
the testing equipment required is given in the following:
Hydraulic Conductivity below Watertable
Principle
A hole, cased or uncased, is drilled into the soil to a certain depth below the watertable. After the water level in
the hole reaches as equilibrium, a part of the water in the hole is removed. Groundwater begins to seep in the
hole and the rate at which the water rises is determined through periodic measurements. The hydraulic
conductivity is then computed by the formulae or graphs describing the mutual relation between the rate of rise,
groundwater conditions and geometry of the hole/seeping area. Two methods namely, Auger Hole and
Piezometer are normally used to measure the hydraulic conductivity (K) below the watertable and are described
in the following:
Auger Hole Method

The auger hole test measure is the average conductivity of the soil profile from the static watertable to the
bottom of the hole. The procedure for hydraulic conductivity test distinguishes four steps which are explained
as under:
Drilling of the Hole

The hole should be augured to the required depth, with minimum disturbance to the soil and the soil profile
prepared. If the soil is homogeneous throughout the profile, the hole is drilled to the total depth and tested. If
the soil profile consists of two or more layers it may be desirable to determine the hydraulic conductivity for
each layer. In such a case step, tests are performed, which are simply a series of auger hole tests in or near the
same hole location but of different depths. The hole is initially augured to within 10 to 15 cm of the bottom of
the first layer and test performed and value of K1 determined. The hole is then augured ending in second layer
10-15 cm above the bottom of the second layer. Test is performed and average K2 of two layers determined.
The procedure is continued until the last layer to be tested has been reached. The hydraulic conductivity for any
layer can be determined from the following:
K n D n - K n-1 D n-1
K nx = (4.1)
D n - D n-1
64
where:
Dn = depth of hole below static water level in nth; step.
Kn = hydraulic conductivity in the nth, step of test;
Knx= hydraulic conductivity required;
x = step number; and
n = number of test.
If the material is highly permeable (10" per hour or more) throughout the profile and comparatively
homogeneous, a hole 30 to 50 cm below the watertable will be best in view of the short time available for taking
reliable measurements. In fine textured soils, the pressure required for initial auguring causes a thin dense seal
to form on the sides of the hole. The removal of this thin seal is essential in obtaining reliable data and can be
done by means of a hole scratcher made from a 3" long wooden cylinder in which small nails are driven and
their heads cut off to make sharp edges. The scratcher through an appropriate arrangement can use the same
extension handles as the augers.
If the soil is unstable and the hole cannot stand then a perforated casing with 5 to 10% open area may be used.
Its outer diameter should be the same or slightly larger than the auger, so that definite contact is made between
casing and periphery of the hole.
Removal of Water
After the hole is made, to improve flow characteristics, water is pumped or bailed out and the watertable
allowed to reach static level. After the level is attained careful measurements made of depth to static watertable
below ground surface, total depth of hole and the distance from the static watertable to the bottom of the hole.
Water from the hole is removed with bailer or stirrup pump. For best results, sufficient water should be
removed so that all readings (minimum five readings) can be completed before the water level rises to half its
original height (0.5 H).
Measurement of Rate of Rise

The observations are made with a constant time interval (t) or with fixed interval for the rise of water (y)
depending on the equipment used. Any procedure or equipment that can accurately measure water level change
with time is satisfactory. The float and recorder board are preferred because these are less expensive, easier to
construct, simple to operate and provide a permanent record. The board commonly used is 2" thick, and 4"
wide by 10" long. A notch 2.5" long and wide enough to hold a nylon roller is made 1" from the end and 1/2"
from the side. A roller is installed and fastened in place. A pointer is fastened directly over the roller to act as a
reference point during the test. A 2" diameter recess is drilled near the roller to hold the stopwatch. A threaded
metal plate for attaching a tripod is attached to the under side of the board on the opposite end from the roller
and stopwatch. Float should be less than 3" and weighted at the bottom. A counter-weight that weighs less than
the float is used to keep the string tight. Recorder tapes are made from 5 foot tracing cloth cut 1/4" wide.
Tripod with float is centred over the hole and float is lowered until float reaches the static watertable. A zero
mark is then made on the tape and counter weight positioned so that full change of water level can be recorded.
This may require that the counter weight hang inside the casing. The float is then removed, water bailed out and
float returned to the hole. Measurements using equal time interval or water level rise continued until recovery
of water in hole equals about 0.2 of the depth initially bailed out (e.g. if Yo = 40 cm, the max Yt = 32cm). It
may not be desirable to continue the measurements for too long as the value of K' factor computed from larger
time gives low value. Only the period covering equally spaced tick marks below 0.8 Yo is used in the
computation.
65
Data Analysis
Ernst solved the flow system around the auger hole numerically and expressed the results of his solution in
approximate equations:
For D > 0.5 H;
4000 r Y
K = . (4.2)
(H + 20r)(2 - Y / H)Y t
For D = 0;
3600 r Y
K = . (4.3)
(H + 10r)(2 - Y / H)Y t
where:
K is in m/day; all others in cm and seconds; Y is the distance between the static water level and average level
of water in the hole for the time interval (t). Van Beers found out that equation (4.2) is valid within 20% if r
is between 3 to 7 cm; H between 20 to 200 cm, Y > 0.2H; D > H and Y < 0.25 Yo.
Reducing the equations for K to K = C. y/ t, the result of the analysis are given in Nomograms from which
C can be read as function of Y, H, r and D (Figure A-1 given at the end of chapter). No graphs are
available for the case D < 0.5H, hence an estimate has to be made between the value for D = 0 and D>0.5H.
The Nomograms are for 4 cm and 6 cm radius, but these can be used for other radial, also by using equivalent
values of H and Y obtained by multiplying these with a factor (radius of graph/radius of hole). Formula is
not often used since convenient graphs are available to simplify the calculations. A sample calculation sheet is
given in Figure 4.1.
HOLE NO LOCATION
OBSERVOR DATE
HOLE CASED UNCASED HOLE DIAMETER 4 INCHES
LOG DESCRIPTION
GROUND GROUND SURFACE
10-11 fT Light brown Sandy Soil(sl)
1 friable, nonsticky, granular wet
2 of 5 feet
3
STATIC
STATIC
4 WATER
WATER Highly compacted below 6 feet .
5
TEST ZONE
LEVEL Appaers to bear good hydraulic LEVEL

DN
6 conductivity
YN
7
8 BOTTOM OF
TEST HOLE
9
10
11 BARRIER
12
11-12fT
BLUE GREY CLAY(C),STCKY,
STRUCTURELESS, IMPERMEABLE
r=.05 ft
DN=9.0ft
DH=4.6ft
H=4.2ft
T0=3.12ft
Q=YN=3.32ft
Figure 4.1: Data and Computation Sheet on Augur Hole Test (USBR)
66
Limitations
It is the most widely used for measurement of method for measurement of the K in the soil region of the radius
30-50 cm. The following possible errors may be taken into account:
(i) Maximum error in graph is estimated at 5%;
(ii) The error caused by wrong measurements of H and Y. For example 1 cm error in H causes 2%
error in K if H = 50 cm and only 1% error if H = 100 cm. The same is true for Y. This shows
that there is no need to measure H and Y within accuracy of millimetres;
Y=0.11 ft=3.3 cm, t = 10 sec

H = 4.2 ft = 135 cm
C = 4.1 (from figure 4.9d)
4.1 3.3
K = C . Y / t = = 1.353 m / day
10
(iii) 1 cm error in diameter of hole causes 20% error in K value;

(iv) A difference of 10% in K value is quite normal when K factor is measured several times in the
same hole; and
(v) The method is not applicable if the hole penetrates into a zone under piezometric pressure.
Piezometric Method
This method of measuring the horizontal hydraulic conductivity is used in preference to the auger hole method
when soil layer to be tested is less than 40-50 cm thick and individual layers below the watertable are to be
tested. Its important application is to provide data for determining which layer below the proposed drain depth
is the effective barrier layer.
The tests consist of installing a pipe with fairly small diameter in the soil layer to be tested and auguring a cavity
below the pipe about 10 cm long. In order to have a good seal in the last 50-60 cm length of the pipe, the auger
hole to install the pipe is stopped within that distance of its final depth. The remaining lowering is done by
auguring through the pipe or driving it with minimum disturbance. The size and shape of the cavity are
important and effort should be made that it is of the predetermined length and diameter. The cavity should
preferably be in the middle of the layer if it is of small thickness. If the soil in the test layer is unstable then it
may be screened. Before the test the cavity is cleaned by gently pumping or bailing water. The test is
performed as usual. Three or four readings during the first half of the water rise will give consistent results.
The value of K' is calculated by the following equation:
r2 (4.4)
K = . ln Y1 / Y 2 ...
A( t 2 - t1)
where:
Y1&Y2 = depth below static water level at time t1 and t2;
A = constant for a given flow geometry; and
r = radius of the casing/cavity.
Graph in Figure 4.2 can be used to determine the value of A and Figure 4.3 gives sample calculation sheet.
The graph is valid for H/r > 4 and when H and b are large as compared to W; where b is distance below
bottom of the cavity to top of the next layer and W is the length of the cavity. One limitation of this method is
that it cannot be used in gravel or coarse sand material because of installation and sealing difficulties. Also
when casing bottoms in coarse gravel, it is impossible to obtain a satisfactory cavity. The size of the casing is 3
to 5 cm, larger casings are difficult to install. This method measures K of soil within one or two cavity
lengths.
67
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
A /2 r 8
0 0
1 2 3 4 5 6 6 8 9
W /2 r
'A ' a s a f u n c t io n o f 'r ' a n d ' W ''
Figure 4.2: A as function of r and W
Dw = Ground surface to static water level (86.40 inches).

2r = Inside diameter of piezometer and cavity (1.0 inches).
H= Static water level to bottom of piezometer (93.6 inches).
W = Length of cavity (4.0 inches).
K = Hydraulic conductivity (inches per hour).
b = Depth to texture change.
Y1, Y2 = distance from static water level to water level of times t1 and t2 (inches).
(t2 - t1) = Time for water level to change from Y1 to Y2 (second).
5600. .r 2 ln(Y1 / Y2 )
K= (inches per hour)
A(t 2 t1)
Time Y (in) A t2-t1 Y1/Y2 loge 3600t2 K

(sec) Y1 | Y2 Y1/Y2
t1 | t2
0 3 86.00 77.00 13.0 3 1.104 0.009 2827.44 0.71
3 8 77.50 70.25 13.1 3 1.105 0.104 2827.44 0.74
6 9 70.25 63.00 13.1 3 1.105 0.107 2827.44 0.78
9 12 63.00 67.27 13.1 3 1.100 0.095 2827.44 0.68
12 15 57.27 61.64 13.1 3 1.103 1.104 2827.44 0.74
68
L ocation
O bse rver D ate
D w = 86 040 G rou nd surface to static w ater leve l..
2 r = 1.0 In side dia m e ter pie zom eter and ca vity.

H = 93 .60 s tatic w a ter lev el to bo ttom of
DW
piezom ete r.
2Y
w = 4.0 Length o f cavity.
A = 13.1 C o nstant for given flow geo m e try taken
fro m curve.
K = h ydraulic co nducticity (i n c hes pe r hour)
S ta tic W ater Lev el
b= D e pth to textu re chan ges
Y 1 , Y 2 , D istance from static w ater level to w ate r

level for t 1 an d t 2 .
Y1
Y
(t 1 , t 2 ) tim e for w a ter level to chang e fro m Y 1

to Y 2 (s econ d).
H
r1
360 0 ( r ) 2 log e
r2
W
k =
A (t 2 t1 )
Figure 4.3: Data and Computation Sample Sheet for Piezometric Test for Hydraulic Conductivity
When piezometric pressure is encountered in a layer to be tested then additional piezometers must be installed.
The tip of the second piezometer must be just below the contact between the layers. In deep uniform soils, the
second piezometer tip should be placed in an arbitrary distance below the test cavity. Figure A-2 is used for
determining A and Figure 4.4 gives the sample calculation sheet and layout.
3600 r 2 log e ( Y 1 /Y 2 )
K =
A (t 2 t 1 )
where:
K=hydraulic conductivity (inches per hour);
Y1-Y2=distance from static water level to water level at time t1 and t2 (inches);
R=radius of casing (inches);
t2-t1=time for water level to change from y1 and y2 (seconds); and
A=a constant for a given flow geometry (inches).
69
P IE Z O M E T E R N O
1 2
P IE Z O M E T E R W A T E R
SURFACE
0
LO AM GROUND SURFACE
2 = 4 ft
w a te rta b le
S IL T
5 LO AM NO TES:
d '= D is ta n c e fro m to p o f
te s t la y e r to c e n tre o f
te s t c a v ity .
H = D is ta n c e fro m w a te r
ta b le to c e n tre o f te s t
F IN E c a v ity .
H2=14ft
H1=19ft
SANDY
LO AM
Depth(ft)
10
S IL T Y d r
C LAY 3 6 0 0 ( ) 2 lo g e 12
k = 2 r
LO AM A ( t 2 t1 )
d'
15
S IL T Y
C LAY
20
SAND
AND
GRAVEL
Figure 4.4: Sample Calculations for Piezometer Test with Upward Pressure in Test Zone
Single Well Drawdown Test

In coarse sand and gravel auger hole or piezometric test are difficult to perform. In such cases a pump-out test
is used. Auger hole is drilled as usual and is pumped continuously at constant discharge. When the steady state
condition is attained (water level drops less than 0.1 foot in 2 hours) the water level is measured. If the hole
bottoms in impermeable layer then following formulae are used for estimating K:
Phereatic Aquifer
Q (4.5)
K=
2 ( H - h 2 )log e (R/r)
2
70
Confined Aquifer
Q (4.6)
K= . log e (R/r)
2 yD
where:
K = hydraulic conductivity;
Q = pumping rate;
y = draw down;
H = height of static water level above bottom of hole;
h = depth of water in hole in steady state condition;
D = Flow thickness of strata;
R = radius of circle of influence; and
r = effective radius of well.
If the hole penetrates less than 20% into an aquifer (Figure 4.5) then hydraulic conductivity is calculated by the
following [88]:
K = Q/C.L.r (4.7)
where:
L = (H2 - h2) / H
C = f (h, r), geometry factor from Figure 4.5
10 3
10 2
10
10 10 2 10 3
h/r
Figure 4.5: Nomogram for the Determination of C
Hydraulic Conductivity above the Watertable

Shallow Well Pump-in Test
The method also known as the "well permeameter test" consists of digging an auger hole up to the desired
depth. The hole is then filled with water and water depth H' is maintained until the flow into the soil becomes
constant. For good results H' should be at least 10r and the water should be free from suspended material.
Elaborate equipment for this test has been devised by the USBR and is shown in Figure 4.6. The minimum and
the maximum amount of water that should be passed through the soil before the readings become reliable are
given by the following equation and shown in Figure A-3 given at the end of this chapter.
71
Figure 4.6: Equipment Set-Up for a Shallow Well Pump-in Test (USBR)
Vmin = 2.09 SH3. B (4.8)

Vmax = 15 SH3. B (4.9)
where:
S = specific yield;
H = height of water maintained in the hole (m);
2
B= [ ]3/ 2 ; and
2 2
ln( H / r + H / r + 1) 1
D = depth of impervious layer or watertable below hole.

For the evaluation of K' Zangar88 gave the following two equations (consistent units):
For D 2H:
Q H H2
K = ln( + + 1) - 1 (4.10)
2 H 2 r r 2

72
For 2H D H:
3Q H
K = ln (4.11)
H(3H + 2D) r
Where: Q = flow rate at equilibrium condition. Nomograms in metric units for determining K with above
equations are given in Figure A-4 and A-5.
When the minimum amount of water has been discharged into the soil, the K should be computed following
each reading. The test can be terminated when a relatively constant K value has been reached. To prevent
caving, if necessary, perforated casing may be used. The installation of test may take several hours and
pumping in may have to be continued for several days before equilibrium flow is obtained.
Cylinder Permeameter
Method discussed earlier determines the horizontal hydraulic conductivity required for calculating the drain
spacing. Usually the vertical hydraulic conductivity (Kv) is assumed to be sufficient to permit deep percolation
from irrigation and rainfall to reach saturated zone in which it moves horizontally. However, slowly permeable
layers may interfere with percolation and create perched watertable. It may be desirable to determine Kv of
such layers to assure success of the drainage measures.
A 42" (105 mm) diameter hole is excavated at the selected site within 3" of the layer to be tested. These 3" are
excavated when the equipment is ready to be installed. A steel cylinder with 18" (45-50 cm) diameter is placed
in the centre of the hole and driven 6" (15 cm) into the ground. In the annular space, 3" to 4" from the cylinder
at two diametrically opposite locations, 9" deep holes are drilled with 1" diameter soil auger and small amount
of dry soil is then added into these holes along with some water. Tensiometer with ceramic cups placed in the
hole and moved up and down in the mud to obtain good contact between porous cups, the mud and the
undisturbed soil. The annular space around the tensiometer is then filled with dry soil within 1" of soil surface.
At right angle to the tensiometer two piezometers 9" below the soil with 4" cavity are also installed. The soil
inside the cylinder is covered with 1" layer of sand. The cylinder and the annular space is then filled with water
to 6" mark. Constant water level is then maintained inside and outside the cylinder through adding water
periodically. An elaborate arrangement has been devised by USBR that is shown in Figure 4.7.
When the tensiometer indicates zero pressure and no water appears in the piezometers, then it may be
assumed that the conditions of Darcys law have been met. If saturated front moving down reaches a less
permeable zone than the one being tested, a water mound will begin to form and the piezometers and the
tensiometer will record it. If this mound reaches the bottom of the cylinder then the readings would no
longer give the correct value of Kv. The Kv can be calculated by:
Kv = V.Z/tAH
where:
Kv = vertical hydraulic conductivity (inches/hr);
Z = length of soil column (in);
H = height of the water above the base of the cylinder (in);
V = volume of water passes through soil in time t;
A = cross section area of test cylinder (sq.in.); and
t = Time in hours.
It is sometimes possible to lower this mound by releasing pressure through auguring few holes at about 10"
around periphery of the cylinder and filling these with sand.
Determination of Infiltration Rate

Infiltration rate is the time rate at which water enters the soil surface. It is influenced by soil properties and
configuration of soil such as furrows etc. When soil surface configuration influences the rate then term intake
rate is generally used in contrast to infiltration rate used for level surface. Infiltration rate of virgin soils will not
be indicative of cultivated soil. Therefore, if area has never been cultivated the soil in the test should be turned
over to a depth of 8" to 10", then levelled and large clods broken up and worked into the soil before the test.
Initially the infiltration rate is more due to very high soil moisture tension differential and the water pulled down
with large force. Several hours after wetting, this difference becomes small and gravity becomes the dominant
force causing infiltration, which gradually reduces and tends to become constant.
73
Figure 4.7: Equipment Set-Up for the Ring Permeameter Hydraulic Conductivity Test
Cylinder or ring permeameter equipment can be used for this test also. An 18" diameter cylinder is driven 1"
into the surface soil and its sides sealed. Then a mound of soil, metal or plastic ring 6" high and 36" diameter
placed concentric with the cylinder. Three inch water depth in inner and outer cylinder is maintained through
separate calibrated tanks. The supply of water to the inner cylinder is measured after every 5 minutes for first
30 minutes. at 15 minutes for second 30 minutes, at 30 minutes for next hour and hourly for next 5 hours.
Infiltration rate then calculated from value of water used and cylinder area for any time after start of test.
74
y K
t 1.0
0.100 10
0.090
0.080
0.070 100
5
0.060 90
0.050
4 80
70
r=4cm
r = 4 cm
0.040
3
60 s D >0.5H
0.5H
2 50
0.030
40
30
0.020 1.0
0.8
0.8
0.7
0.6
y=10
0.5
c
0.4 20 12
18
0.3
0.2 16 14
14
`
0.010 0.10
`
0.09 12
0.009 0.8 16
0.008 0.07 10
0.007 0.06
0.006 0.05 9 18
0.04 8 20
0.005 7
0.03 6
0.004
5 25
0.02
4
30
0.003 0.01
3
35
40
50
0.002 60
2
70
80
90
100
110
120
140
160
0.001 1
0 10 20 30 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 190
cm/sec m/day
H(cm)
Figure A-1a : Nomogram for Estimating Value of K for D>0.5H and r=4cm
75
y
t K
0.1 8.0 100

0.09 8.0
6.0
90
0.08 5.0 80
0.07 4.0
70 r=4cm
r = 4 cm
0.06 60
0.05
3.0
50 D=0
D =0
2.0
0.04 40
1.0
0.03 0.8 30
0.6 y=10
0.5
0.02 0.4 20 12
0.3 14
16
0.2
y
14 y 16
t
12 t
0.01 10 18
0.10
0.008 9
0.08
8 20
0.007
0.007
0.07
0.06 C 7
0.006
0.05 6 25
0.04
0.005
0.31
5 30
0.004 4 35
40
45
0.003
0.02 3 50
60
70
0.002 2 80
100
140
180
0.001
0.01
1 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 140 160 180
cm/Sec
cm/sec m/day H(cm)
H(cm)
Figure A-1b: Monogram for Estimating Value of K for D=0 and r=4cm
76
y k
t 10 40
0 .10
0 .09
9
8
40 rr=5cm
= 5 cm
0 .08
7 40 D > 0.5H
D >0.5H
6
0 .070 5 40
4
12.5
0 .060 60
3 15
50
0 .050
2 17.5
40 20
0 .040
1 .0
0 .030 0 .9 30 25
0 .8
0 .7
0 .6 y=12.5
0 .5
30
0 .4 20
0 .020
18 35
0.03
40 15
16
0 .2 14 45 17.5
12
50 20
0 .010 0.1 0 10
0.0 9
60
9
0 .009 0.0 8
0.0 7
0 .008 8 25
0.0 6 70
0 .007
0 .006 0.0 5
7
0.04 6
80
0 .005 30
0.03
0 .004 5 90
35
0.002
100
40
0 .004 4
120 45
0.001 50
3
0 .003 60
140 70
80
160 90
0.002 2 180 100
120
140
200
160
200
H(cm)
0.001 1
c m /sec m /24 hou rs 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 1 20 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 20 0 210 220 230 240
Figure A-1c: Nomogram for Estimating Value of K for D>0.5H and r=5cm
77
y
t K
0.10
10 10
0.09 9.0 y=12.5
0.08 8.0 9.0
7.0 15
0.07 6.0 8.0
5.0 7.0 17.5
0.06
4.0
0.05 6.0
3.0 20
0.04 5.0
2.0
0.03 4.0 25
rr=5
= 5cm
cm
D= D=0
0
1.0 3.0
0.9 30
0.02
0.8
0.7 y=12.5
y=12.5
0.6
35
0.5
40 15
0.4 2.0
0.3 45
50 17.5
0.2 C 60
20
0.01 0.10 1.0

0.09 70
0.009 0.08 0.9
0.07 25
0.008 0.8 80
0.06
0.7
0.007 0.05
90 30
0.006 0.04 0.6
100
0.005 0.03 0.5
35
0.02 120 40
0.004 0.4
45
0.01 50
0.003 140 60
0.3
70
80
160
90
180 100
0.002 0.2
120
200 140
160
180
200
0.001
cm/sec m/day
0 102030 40 50 607080 90100 120 130140 150 160 170180 200 220 240
H(cm)
Figure A-1d: Nomogram for Estimating Value of K for D=0 and r=5cm
78
V A L U E O F .C O N S T A N T
0 0 0 .1 0 .2 0 .3 0 .4 0 .5 0 .6 0 .7 0 .8 0 .9 1 .0
40
d } 2 - in c h - d ia m e te r p ie z o m e te r
35
=
h
0 & & 0 .9
& 7 8
.4 0 .
0
1 .7 5 - in c h - d ia m e te r
}
0 .2 &
.
ti f n e
.5 6
p ie z o m e te r
01
n e n
0 0.
.
ic ce
e u Li
0
n
i d eq e -
.3
ti o
VALUE OF A. Inches
s iv
a
F
} 1 .5 - in c h - d ia m e te r p ie z o m e te r
30
1 .2 5 - in c h - d ia m e te r
} p ie z o m e te r
} 1 - in c h - d ia m e te r p ie z o m e te r
50
15
A - F U N C T IO N
F o r p ie z o m e tr ic h y d r a u lic
c o n d u c tiv ity te s t w h e n
u p w a r d p r e s s u r e is in th e
te s t z o n e
10
Figure A-2: Chart for Determining A function on Piezometer Test for Hydraulic Conductivity when there is
Upward Pressure in the Test Zone
79
Hight of water Hight of water Maximum volume

------------- Minimum Volume Estimated
H(m)
radious of well V/m 3 Specific yield
H/r S
Min Max
3.0
2.8
2.6
2.4 3.0
2.2 2.0 20.0
2.0 HYDRAULIC
10.0 TEXTURE STRUCTURE CONDUCTIVITY
150 1.8 8.0
m/day
1.6 1.0 0.35

6.0 caore sand
100 Gravel single grain >12
12
1.4 .60 4.0 0.30
75
.40 3.0
50 1.2 Medium
2.0 0.24 sand
single grain 6.0-12.0
1.0 .20
30 Loamy sand Medium crumble
0.20 fine sand single grain
3.0-6.0
0.9 1.0
25 Coarse
0.8 0.80 Fine sandy
20 0.10 subangular
loam 1.5-3.0
15-30
0.40 sandy loam
sticky
0.7 granular
15 0.06 0.14
0.5 0.20
0.6 light clay
0.04 0.12 loam medium 0.5-1.5
silt presmatic
0.5 0.10 silt loam &sunangula
10 0.02 0.10 very fine r
sany loam blocky
0.4 loam
0.08
0.01 0.08 0.08 clay
fine and
0.06 silty clay
sandy lay medium
primatic 0.12-0.5
0.3 0.00 0.04 ,angular
0.06 silty clay
3 0.03 loam blocky and
clay loam sticky
Key to solving Monograph 0.05 silt loam
silt
V sandy clay
H/t
min S 0.04 loam
H max
clay
1 4 0.03 clay very fine
5
2 loam and fine 0.06-0.12
3
silty structrue
clay angular
sandy block and
3
clay slaty
0.07 loam
2
2 h
V min = 2 .09 S h + r + 1 ] } 1
h
ln ( 0.05
r
clay
sandy
Massive
very fine of <0.06
<0.062
clay fine
V min = 15 S [Same ]
loam colouminar
0.01
Figure A-3: Nomogram for Determining Minimum and Maximum Volume of Water to be Discharged During
Pump-in Hydraulic Conductivity Test (Metric Units)
80
Q K
m3 /min m/day H meters
H/r
0.15
0.20
10.0
6.0 0.25
2.0
0.30
2.0
0.35
1.0
0.40
.8
.6
150 0.5
120 .2 0.60
100 .1
0.70
70
.06 100
0.80
.04 40
2 0.90
50 .02 20 1.0
10
40 .01 8 1.2
4
.008 1.40
30 1.0
.006 1.60
25
.8
.002 1.80
.2
20
.001 2.00
.0008 .1
.0006 1.40
1 .0004
0.06
15 2.80
0.02
.0002 0.01 3.0
.008
.0001
.004
1.0 .00006 .002
.001 Example
.00004
H=0.76m
.00002 r=0.51m
5
.00001 Q=0.000034m3/day
.000008
.000006
.000002 Condition-I
.000002 Tu 71 3h
5 h h
K ( m / day ) = 1440 log e ( + ( ) 2 + 1 1
r r
2h 3
Figure A-4: Nomogram for Determining Hydraulic Conductivity from Shallow Pump-in
Test Data for D 2H (Metric Units)
81
3H Tu H
H
H
= 20.96 3 log e r
r K = 1440 Q
h(h + 2Tu )
Figure A-5: Nomogram for Determining Hydraulic Conductivity from Shallow Pump-in
Test Data for 2H D 2H (Metric Units)
82
Blank page
83
TILE DRAINAGE DESIGN
General
Tile drainage design in addition to many small details, primarily involves determination of drain spacing, its
depth, size of laterals and collectors and layout pattern. In order to determine the design, certain drainage
design criterions are required such as:
1. Depth of water or depth range of watertable fluctuation required to be achieved by the drainage
system. This depends upon the nature of crops grown, agriculture practices and the soil
characteristics.
2. Drainage surplus (drainage coefficient) for the area. This depends upon the land use pattern,
irrigation practices, nature of soils and their reclamation needs, sources of excess water etc.
3. Factors controlling depth such as capacity of the available drainage machinery, depth of the
irremeably layer, out-fall level and develop economic factors etc.
In order to develop drainage design criterion, it is necessary to develop drainage/requirement for crop
growth, farming operations and soil-water-plant relationship.
Crop Growth and Drainage

Nutrient elements from the organic matter in the soil are produced by the microbiological activity, which
consumes considerable amount of oxygen and releases carbon dioxide. The soil temperature also affects the
biological activity. Waterlogging not only lowers the soil temperature but also chokes respiration resulting in
oxygen deficiency and accumulation of carbon dioxide in the soil. The waterlogged soils therefore, have
tendency of 'N' deficiency and accumulate toxic compounds, both are injurious for plant growth. The amount
of injury depends on the plant species, stage of plant development, soil and air temperatures and on the
duration of waterlogging. Long-term adverse aeration permanently limits metabolic activity and development
of root system impeding the uptake of nutrients, whereas in temporary flooding the injurious effect is from
short-term deficiency and or excess of CO2. On the basis of diffusion in the gaseous phase of soils, lower
limit for adequate aeration is l when 20% of total pore space is filled with air. The oxygen diffusion rate
(ODR) at various soil depths with different depths to watertable are given in Figure 5.1.
It is believed that roots of many plants do not grow in soils with ODR values 20xl08 gm/cm2 or less. For
germination and emergence of seeds minimum ODR values required are of the order of 40 to 80 x 10.8 gm/
cm2. Among the various processes affected by the soil temperature, the effect on physiological processes is
expected to be most important. To evaluate the effect of soil temperature on crop response three cardinal
points of activity are often distinguished i.e. the minimum temperature below which an activity would occur,
an optimum at which the highest activity occurs and the maximum above which the activity is again zero. It
is therefore, obvious that certain minimum air and soil temperature is needed for all plant growth. Between
allowable minimum and maximum air temperature there is certain affect of soil temperature in the sense that
higher, but not extreme, soil temperature for favorable growth. The correlation between mean soil
temperature (T) and reciprocal of time needed for 50% germination is given in Figure 5.2 and indicates that a
small increase in temperature can result in a large decrease in time needed for emergence. Unfavourable soil
temperatures at seeding time often produce poor stand and consequently reduced yield.
84
3 5 W A T E R T A B L E D E P T H (C M )
1 5
3 0
2 0 4 5
5 0
ODR Rate {lC g/cm /min}
2
1 5
-2
1 0
0
5 1 5 2 5 35 45 55
D e p th B e lo w S o il S u r fa c e o f E le c tr o d e ( C m )
Figure 5.1: Measured Oxygen Diffusion Rates (ODR) at various Soil Depths in Lysimeters with different
Watertable Depths
tc tc
R a d is h S p n ic h
1 6
1 2
8
F = 9 1
F = 7 2 T m in 2 .6
T m in 3 .3 r = 0 .0 9
4 r = 0 .9 3
0 0 .0 4 0 .0 8 0 .1 2 0 .1 6 0 0 .0 4 0 .0 8 0 .1 2 0 .1 6
T c T c
R e d lu b e b e e t
L a g u m e
1 6
r = { T -T m in } l
1 2
8
F = 1 3 0 F = 9 5
T m in 3 .3 T m in 4 .3
r = 0 .9 3 r = 0 .9 5
0 0 .0 4 0 .0 8 0 .1 2 0 .1 6 0 0 .0 4 0 .0 8 0 .1 2 0 .1 6
1 /t 1 /t
Figure 5.2: Correction between Mean Soil Temperature (T) at 3-cm Depth and the Reciprocal of
Time (t) needed for 50% Germination
85
Drainage by reducing liquid content of soil can help in increasing the soil temperature by about 1C, thereby
resulting in some early germination and reducing the crop opening period may be 1 to 3 weeks. However, the
benefit of drainage to increase soil temperature may be more marked in cold climates then in arid regions.
Drainage and Farming Operations

Timeliness in performing farming operations is a major objective of drainage. It improves efficiency in the
production system while lack of timeliness may result in complete crop failure or reduction in yield. A crop
can be planted only during a certain time span, based on its adaptation to an area. The optimum planting date
in terms of production is usually at or near the beginning of this period. Skipping areas or spots in a field
which are not suitable for farming operations, being too wet, for subsequent planting not only increases costs
but also reduces efficiency.
The estimated reduction in yield for delay beyond the optimum planting dates may be as much as 2% per
day. The effect of timeliness probably is more in cold and humid climates where growing season is shorter
than in arid regions where it is much longer from stand point of crop requirement.
Physics of Soil Moisture

Soil moisture is quantity of the water present in the soil under unsaturated conditions. The boundary between
unsaturated and saturated soil is the watertable where pressure is exactly atmospheric. The water above the
watertable is held by capillary and other forces under pressure less than atmospheric (i.e. negative pressure),
which is known as suction or tension. The suction 's' is expressed in 'cm' of water or its logarithm (PF=logs).
The relation between soil water suction and soil moisture content is often given by a curve called pF curve.
Figure (5.3) gives such curves for sandy and silty soils and indicate that sandy soil loose 20% of its soil
moisture as compared to 7% for silty soil when pF changes from 1 to 2.
4
S IL T
Y SO
IL
3
pF (LOG S)
SA N
DY S
2 OIL
0
0 10 20 30 40
MOISTURE CONTENT (VOLUME %)
Figure 5.3: pF Curves
The steady state vertical transport of soil moisture can be given by Darcys law for unsaturated flow as
ds
q = K 1 (5.1)
dz
86
where:
q = flux (m/day);
K = hydraulic conductivity (m/day);
s = suction (rn of water); and
z = vertical distance from watertable (m).
In unsaturated flow 'K' depends upon soil type and the moisture content. Figure 5.4 give the variation of k
with soil moisture and indicate that sand has better hydraulic conductivity than silt at the same soil moisture
content. However, when compared at the same level of suction (Figure 5.5), the sand has a lesser 'K' value
except at high degree of saturation (pF < 2). From the formula it is seen that q=O, when ds/dz -1 or s = z. The
resultant equilibrium pF profile (pF = log s = log z) is given in Figure 5.6 together with moisture profiles for
a sandy and a silty soil with watertable at 10 m below the surface. It would be seen that the sandy soil is
much drier than the silty soil under same conditions.
4
PERMEABILITY K/M/DAY
S A N D Y S O IL
3
1
S IL T Y S O IL
0
0 10 20 30 40 50
M o is tu r e C o n te n t( v o l % )
Figure 5.4: Variation of Permeability with Soil Moisture Content
0
S A N D Y S O IL
1
LOG 'K'
2
S ILT Y S O IL
1 2 2.3 2.5 2.6 2.7

S U C T IO N (C M )
Figure 5.5: Variation of Permeability with Suction)
87
A. EQUILIBRUM SUCTION
B. EQUILIBRUM pF PROFILE
Z ELEVATION ABOVE
1.0 1.0
WATER TABLE(CM)
0.8 0.8
)
M
(C
Z(cm)
0.6 S=
Z 0.6
Z(c Log
0.4 0.4
m)
=
pF
0.2
0.2
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 1 2
1.0
-
C. EQILIBRUM MOISTURE PROFILE
DERIVED FROM B TO BE THEN WITH pF CURVE FIG 5.7
0.8
Z(m)
SILT
0.6
SAND
0.4
0.2
0 10 20 30
MOISTURE CONTENT(vol %)
Figure 5.6: Equilibrium Profiles (zero flux)
From the formula it can be further deduced that when ds/ dz > 1, then q > 0. In other words there is a positive
flux of water when the suction 's' increases rapidly with height 'z' (or the moisture content decreases rapidly
with height). Since an increase of suction 's' implies a further decrease of 'K ', it is clear that the silt will have
higher capacity for unsaturated upward flow than the sand. In the Table 5.1 moisture content (vol %) and
moisture tension profiles are given as a function of elevation above watertable (z) for two different fluxes
(q = 3 and 1 mm/day) in a sandy and a silty soils. It would be seen that under steady-state condition the
watertable in a sandy soil establishes itself at a shallower depth than in a silty soil. Also, it can be seen that if
the watertable in a sandy soil is deeper than about 60 cm, there cannot be much upward flux ( < l mm/ day),
whereas an upward flux of l mm/day may still exist in a silty soil where the watertable is at a depth of
150 cm.
88
Table 5.1: Showing Soil Moisture Content for Various Tensions

PF Tension (cm Sandy Soils Sandy Soils
of water) Moisture q-3mm q=1mm Moisture q-3mm Q=1mm
content (% z z content (% z z
vol) vol)
1.3 20 36.0 20 20 42 20 20
1.7 50 16.0 45 48 37 46 49
2.0 100 9.5 40 48 34 73 87
2.4 250 6.2 51 59 27 83 111
2.7 500 5.2 - 60 24 87 124
3.0 1000 3.8 - - 20 91 134
3.4 2500 3.1 - - 17 94 143
3.7 5000 2.5 - - 14 95 148
4.0 10,000 2.0 - - 12 97 152
Plant-Soil-Water Relations
Plants for their growth require soil moisture with dissolved nutrients and oxygen from the soil for respiration. The carbon
dioxide produced by roots is exchanged with oxygen from-the atmosphere through process of diffusion, which is only
possible if there is aeration of the root zone. The moisture content and the aeration of the root zone depend on the depth
to watertable, the type of the soil and the net infiltration (I -Et or net evapotranspiration (Et-I). Figure 5.7
gives the equilibrium moisture profiles of silty and sandy soils for watertable at 1.0 metre depth as derived
from Figure 5.5 together with the moisture profiles for certain assumed steady state infiltration and
evaporation. It can be seen that silty soil with infiltration has little or no aeration, whereas in the sandy soil,
aeration is good for plant if soil becomes very dry. The hydrologic factors (infiltration, evaporation) are
generally quite variable and thus resulting in varying moisture contents and aeration conditions of soils
during the course of the time. Aeration is indirectly related to agricultural production through the following
factors:
a. Mineralization and especially the availability of nitrogen;
b. Benefit of top dressing particularly phosphorous;
c. Activity of earth worms, favourable for soil structure;
d. Workability traffic ability and structure stability;
e. Penetration of root system enhancing nutrient availability;
f. Reduction of frost damages by heaving;
g. Reduction of specific heat and promoting warming up; and
h. Control of weeds, diseases and pests.
A E R A T IO N S IL T
N
RATIO
A E R A T IO N S A N D
FILT
1 .0
ILE
WITH IN
OF
N
O
PR
TI
A
R
E
Z= ELEVATION FROM WATER TABLE(M)
N
O
UR
IO
PROFILE
RT
V
IST
A
H
MO
LT
IT
E
W
FI
IL
UM
IN
IF
LE
OISTURE
R
H
FI
P
ILIB
IT
O
E
R
R
P
U
QU
LE
T
E
IS
R
FI
T/ E
SILT M
TU
N
O
T IO
M
IS
PR
RA
M
SIL
0 .2 PO
M
A
R
T
IB
EV
IL
TU
IL
IT H
S
U
IS
W
Q
O
E
/E
F IL
/M
O
D
PR
ND
N
A
E
UR
S
SA
ST
OI
/M
ND
SA
0 30
40 20 10
S A T U R A T IO N P O IN T S A N D M O IS T U R E C O N T E N T (V O L % )
Figure 5.7: Moisture Profiles under Infiltration or Evaporation
89
Drainage often improves the soil condition. For example lowering of watertable may result in better structure
of topsoil, an increased in infiltration rate and porosity with consequent reduction in surface problem. In irrigated
areas of arid zones, downward percolation of water is necessary to maintain a favourable salt balance in the
root zone, which in absence of natural drainage can be obtained by subsurface drainage.
Drainage Design Criteria

A large variation in hydrologic, agro-climatic, soils and crops, both in space and time, make the
determination of a correct watertable regime or drainage criterion rather problematic and may give rise to
different criterion depending upon the objective and the local conditions. Drainage criterion, depend on
following factors.
I. Crops
Crop season drainage for aeration;
Off season drainage for indirect effect of aeration;
Drainage of specific crop; and
Salt drainage.
II. Soils
Heavy soils;
Medium soils; or
Light soils.
III. Climate
Humid;
Temperate; or
Arid.
IV. Type of Drainage
Pipe drains; Mole drains; Open ditches; or Tubewells.
V. Economics
The drainage criterion evolved may have to be modified to meet the economic justification. Since drainage
criteria ultimately concern water levels only, which in nature are generally fluctuating. It should take into
account the direct or indirect effect of fluctuations on agricultural production. Accordingly, the way in which
a criterion takes into account the watertable behaviour, one more sub-division in drainage criteria is possible
i.e. primary, secondary and tertiary.
Primary Criteria account for the average depth to watertable and require knowledge of the relation between
agricultural production and the average depth of the watertable. It takes into account watertable fluctuations
in the sense that the larger the average depth assumed, the less frequent will be the occurrence of high
watertable. Primary criteria can be developed for certain critical climatic periods or growing seasons only.
The shorter critical period is taken, the more critical climatic events can be taken into account. Primary
criteria are of stationary nature (steady state) and can be applied through steady state drainage formulae.
However, as shorter critical period can be taken, it approaches the unsteady state situation.
Secondary Criteria express a certain (low) frequency of exceeding of a certain (Critical, high) water level.
Application of these criteria is only useful, where, a relation can be established between agricultural
production and frequency of exceeding of a well-defined critical water level, which is however generally not
the case. Its application requires a good knowledge of variations in hydrological conditions and soil water
storage. If storage is small compared to the total volume of discharge, steady state drainage formulae can be
used. If the storage is larger, unsteady state drainage formula need to be used.
Tertiary Criteria may give either a drain discharge or the fall of a watertable when the later has reached a
certain (critical) level. It can be processed with steady state and unsteady state methods respectively. Tertiary
criteria do not give a clue as to how, often a certain critical water level is exceeded nor do they clarify the
average position of the watertable. These can therefore, be used only in conjunction with primary or
secondary criteria. For practical purposes the use of primary criteria is to be preferred.
90
Depth to Watertable
The objective of drainage is to prevent occurrence of an excessive moist condition in root zone, which have harmful
effect on the crop growth. The watertable control by drainage system primarily depends upon soil type, climate,
crop, quality of groundwater and water management. Most crops grow best with a watertable below the normal root
zone, however, higher watertable for a shorter period may also not affect the growth adversely. It is always desirable
to determine relationship between depth to watertable and yield for each specific project (Figure 5.8), however, the
general guiding recommendations for watertable depths for use in steady and non-steady formula are as given in
Table 5.2. For lands planted to different crops, the deepest water table required should be used.
Table 5.2: Watertable Depth (m)
Crop Steady State Non-Steady State

Soil Texture Soil Texture
Fine Light Fine Light
Field Crops 1.2 1.0 0.9 0.9
Vegetables 1.1 1.0 0.3 0.9
Tree Crop 1.6 1.2 1.4 1.1
U P P E R G R O U N D W A T E R (S A L IN IT Y M IC R O M O H S )
0 10 15 20 25 30
5000 10000 15000
50
N O Y IE L D
Y IE L D = 0 -1 5 M U N D S /A C R E
100
150
Y IE L D = 1 5 -3 0 M U N D S /A C R E
200
250
Y IE L D = M O R E T H A N 3 0 M U N D S /
ACRE
300
L IN CM
50
DEPTH BELOW GROUND LEVE
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 20 30 40
E C . O F G R O U N D W A T E R IN M IL L IM O H S /C M
Figure 5.8: Influence of Watertable Depth and Salinity on Crop Yield
91
In irrigated areas the watertable rises in response to irrigation and rainfall and subsequently falls due to
drainage and evapotranspiration (Figure 5.9). It fluctuates regardless of whether steady state or transient
equations are used for design. The design must be such that the watertable will not rise excessively and
damage the root system of the plants. Therefore, the recommended watertable levels are primarily related to
aeration requirements and refer to design level of watertable during peak drainage requirement. Where water
supply is undependable or irrigation practices are particularly deficient, the following design levels are
suggested for medium textured soils, in the irrigation season (Table 5.3). Control of watertable is also
required in fallow lands to minimize salinization due to upward movement of saline groundwater. The
minimum recommended depths are 1.4 m in coarse and fine textured soils and 1.7 m in medium textured
soils.
Table 5.3 Suggested Irrigation Season Watertable Depth (m)
Crop Steady State Non-steady state
Field crops 1.4 1.2
Vegetables 1.3 1.1
Tree crops 1.6 1.4
PEA K W A TER TA B LE
LEVE L FO R TR A N SIEN T
D ESIG N
PEA K A VER A G E W A TE R LEV EL

FO R STE A D Y STA TE D ESIG N
D R A IN
D EPTH
1 2 3 4 5 6 IR R IG A TIO N A PP LIC A TIO N
Figure 5.9: Steady state and Transient Design Watertable Levels in an Irrigation Season
Design Drainage Rate

There are two types of drainage design rates, one for the design of drain spacing (Laterals) and the other for
the drain size. The earlier depends upon the water balance of the area while the later is related to the first.
The water balance of an area is variable in time and so is the drainage rate, as it depends upon the climatic
factors, irrigation application and scheduling, type of the crops grown etc. The design drainage rate would be
the one, which caters for the most vulnerable situation in protecting the adverse effect to the crop. Regardless
of whether a steady state or transient state equation is used to design the drain spacing the watertable would
continue to fluctuate. Since the steady state criterion is the simplest to use, it is therefore, advantageous to
express all drainage criterion in terms of an equivalent steady state criterion, regardless of whether the
primary purpose of drainage is to yield a certain fall, or fluctuation of watertable, or salinity control. These
objectives could be used in the evaluation of the drainage requirement, but the drainage requirement itself
could be expressed in terms of an equivalent steady state criterion. A general water balance diagram for an
agricultural land is given in Figure 5.10. From the diagram numerous combinations are possible resulting in
water balance equations, such as 50:
a) At the Soil Surface
l = Si + Pr -So Es (5.2)
b) In Unsaturated Zone
1 = Et + P C (5.3)
92
c) At the watertable
P-C = Go + q Gi (5.4)
Combining (5.2) and (5.3) and equating with (5.1):
1 = Et + Go- Gi +q = Si + Pr So Es (5.5)
or,
Si + Pr + Gj = Go + q + Et + Es (5.6)
ET
ES
SU R FA C E W A TE R LE VE L
d R
S Q
S
LA N D S U R FA C E
I t
M G R O U N D W A TE R TA B LE
P
q Q
g
GO
IM P ER M EA B LE LA YE R
.
Figure 5.10: Soil Hydrologic Inputs and Outputs
where:
I = Infiltration into the unsaturated zone;
Si = Inflow of surface water (inundation/irrigation);
So = Outflow of surface water (drainage of surface water);
Pr = Precipitation;
P = Deep percolation (unsaturated down-ward flow);
C = Capillary rise (unsaturated upward flow);
Es = Evaporation of surface water;
Et = Evapotranspiration;
Go = Groundwater outflow;
Gi = Groundwater inflow; and
Q = Subsurface drainage outflow.
(St + Pr + Gi) are the recharge factors, while (Go + q + Et + Es) are the discharge factors, and 'I', 'P' and 'C' are
linkage factors. The aim of land drainage is to reduce the resistance to surface or sub-surface outflow in order
to reduce the depth and frequency of water storage (i and or D) and increase the depth of the aerated zone (i)
is such a way that agriculture production is improved. A description of tolerated 'j' and 'i' value serve as a
drainage criterion. For discharge factors, the intermediate factors (I, P and C) and the resultant water storage
j, i, and D).
Water Balance
The main water balance equation to determine the drainage coefficient in steady state design is given as
under:
Os = Rt + Sc + Gi -Go (5.7)
93
where:
Os = Water to be removed by the on farm drainage system i.e. drainage coefficient;
Rt = On farm recharge to groundwater through rainfall, irrigation application etc;
Sc = Seepage from canals/minors/watercourses;
Gi = Groundwater inflow including artesian; and
Go = Groundwater outflow i.e. natural drainage.
The estimation of various water balance components are briefly discussed:
Recharge (Rt)
The major sources of recharge in an irrigated area are from irrigation application, leaching requirement for
salinity control and infiltration from precipitation. To estimate value of (Rt) for use in the above equation,
firstly the leaching requirement per annum or per season to maintain a favourable salt balance is determined
and a leaching program is prepared indicating leaching to be achieved in off-season, in the irrigation season
and per irrigation. Secondly, the maximum expected rate of deep percolation losses from irrigation
application are determined keeping in view the high delta crops grown, the irrigation method and its
application efficiency and the nature of the soils. Thirdly, determine the pattern of rainfall and its intensity
and estimate the recharge rate in the off season. Select the largest of all the three rates as 'Rt' to with
assumption that deep percolation losses are fully effective in leaching.
Seepage (Sc)
Seepage occurs from unlined main canals/branches/ distributaries and minors. If a barrier layer exists at
shallow depth i.e. say within 5m then the seepage can be intercepted by an interceptor drain or farm drain
located near the canal. If the barrier layer is deep then the recharge is likely to be continuous and uniform
over the area. Seepage losses also occur - from the watercourses and farmers ditches and recharge from these
can be taken as uniform because of high density of these conveyance ditches (=150 m per hectare). Recharge
from the canal system and field ditches can be estimated from various studies made in the country (See
Chapter (l). Inflow (Gi) and Outflow (Go): In large flat irrigated areas (slope < 0.5%), where there are small
localized rises and falls analysis of water balance is the best method for determining these quantities. Where
sufficient data are available on groundwater slope, flow cross-section and sub-surface geology, flow net
analysis using the Darcy equation can be used to calculate inflow and outflow from the area.
Localized areas, within large irrigated areas may have significant differences in rates of inflow and outflow,
which may be identified by depth to water table and salinity of groundwater. Saline water close to surface
may indicate inflow approximately equal to potential evapotranspiration with little outflow. Average water
table depths with average salinity may indicate equilibrium condition i.e. inflow approximately equal to
outflow. In areas where non-saline watertable is below 2m. It indicates that natural drainage outflow equals
or exceeds present drainage requirements. These localized areas can be identified on maps by the following
classes26:
Table 5.4: Classification of Areas by Groundwater Salinity and Watertable Depth
Groundwater Salinity Watertable Depth
Shallow Shallow Deep
High IS2 IS1 IS0
Medium IS1 IS0 ND1
Low IS0 ND1 ND2
Note: IS = in seepage.
ND = outflow/natural drainage.
0, 1, 2 are higher number, higher rate.
In areas where no survey has been carried out this estimation may be made by observation of specific
features, such as, topography phreatophyte vegetation, oasis type zone or zones of salt accumulation.
Drainage Coefficient (q)
It is essentially a parameter in steady state design and is determined by solving the water balance equation.
For irrigation areas in arid regions where field experience is inadequate following equation may be used to
estimate drainage coefficient67.
q = Iw(P+Cl)/10 (5.8)
24F
94
where:
q = drainage coefficient (in/hr);
P = deep percolation from irrigation including leaching requirement (%)
based on consumptive use studies;
Cl = Field canal losses (%) i.e. water courses etc;
Iw = irrigation application (inches); and
F = irrigation frequency (days).
If sub-surface inflow/outflow is negligibly small, then the design drainage coefficients are likely to be in the
following ranges:
< 1.5 mm/day... for soils having a low infiltration rate;
1.5-3.0 mm/day.. for most soils, with the higher rate for more permeable soils and where
cropping intensity is high.;
3.0-4.5mm/day... for extreme conditions of climate, crop and salinity management and
under poor irrigation practices; and
> 4.5 mm/day .. for special conditions, e.g. rice irrigation on light textured soils.
An example of daily recharge to groundwater from irrigation and precipitation in Mardan SCARP83 is given
in Table 5.5 & 5.6 it will be seen that it varies from 0 to 1.20 inches on ten daily basis. The maximum
recharge after cropped area adjustment is in April and gives an average drainage rate of 0.0075 h/day (2.3
mm/day). In transient flow equations the depth to watertable to be maintained throughout the season is taken
as a guide to determine the drain spacing as explained subsequently.
Table 5.5: 10 Days Irrigated and Rainfall Recharge in 5 Wet Years at Mardan
End of No of Calc: 1 Calc Eff: Average Evaporation Recharge to Reduced Irrigation
Interval days in 5 wet 1 in 5 gross index- Ground- Water course Total
Day-Mon year Wet year Watercourse inches water Delivery Recharge
rain rain req.
10-05 10 0.28 0.26 251 240 0.37 2.51 0.57
20-05 10 0.25 0.24 268 254 0.36 2.46 0.36
31-05 11 0.02 0.02 261 278 0.15 2.61 0.15
10-06 10 0.01 0.01 251 284 0.32 2.51 0.32
20-06 10 0.01 0.01 254 289 0.34 2.54 0.34
30-06 10 0.40 0.38 258 285 0.09 2.56 0.50
10-07 10 0.80 0.76 214 284 0.06 2.14 0.06
20-07 10 3.10 1.47 206 269 0.84 2.06 0.48
31-07 11 4.30 1.99 187 260 1.36 0.98 0.37
10-08 10 3.80 1.78 201 256 1.23 1.00 0.22
20-08 10 3.00 1.42 177 240 0.79 1.77 0.79
30-08 11 1.37 0.86 157 224 0.19 1.57 0.19
10-09 10 1.50 1.21 211 204 1.28 1.06 0.23
20-09 10 0.50 0.45 201 183 0.70 2.00 0.63
30-09 10 0.50 0.47 177 160 0.23 1.77 0.64
10-10 10 0.12 0.11 154 158 0.11 1.58 0.11
20-10 10 0.12 0.11 148 148 0.11 1.48 0.11
31-10 11 0.12 0.111 157 138 0.30 1.57 0.30
10-11 10 0.13 0.12 148 114 0.48 1.48 0.25
20-11 10 0.08 0.08 113 090 0.31 1.13 0.28
30-11 10 0.20 0.19 085 070 0.34 0.85 0.30
10-12 10 0.23 0.72 058 055 0.25 0.58 0.05
20-12 10 0.25 0.24 056 054 0.36 0.56 0.23
31-12 11 0.37 0.35 053 058 0.30 0.53 1.09
10-01 10 0.98 0.93 017 059 0.51 0 0.05
20-01 10 0.40 0.38 019 061 0.04 0 0.70
31-01 11 1.81 1.72 037 063 1.46 0 1.0
10-02 10 0.74 0.70 065 065 0.44 0 0.05
20-02 10 1.50 1.42 069 069 1.17 0 0.73
28-02 8. 1.50 1.42 083 083 1.38 0 0.59
10-03 10 0.45 0.62 104 104 0.72 0.54 022
20-03 10 1.20 1.34 118 118 0.30 0.54 0.90
31-03 11 1.50 1.42 136 138 1.27 0.54 0.66
10-04 10 0.90 0.85 158 158 0.75 1.48 0.75
20-04 10 0.80 0.76 178 170 0.91 1.33 0.91
30-04 10 0.80 0.76 209 209 0.81 2.17 0.84
Total 365 34.14 24.99 5310 5900 19.09 47.29 13.23
95
Table 5.6: Estimated Maximum Recharge in 1 in 5 Wet Years Adjusted for Cropped Area
Adjusted
End of Gross Wetted Calc.Eff Evaporation
Number of Cropped Water Recharge to
interval Watercourse Area in 5 wet index-
Days Area (%) Course groundwater
Day-Mon Deliveries (%) year rain inches
Delivery
10-05 10 2.51 70 80 2.98 0.26 2.40 0.84
20-05 10 2.66 67 78 3.24 0.24 2.54 0.94
31-05 11 2.61 63 76 3.26 0.02 2.78 0.50
10-06 10 2.51 57 72 3.31 0.01 2.84 0.48
20-06 10 2.54 54 69 3.50 0.01 2.89 0.62
30-06 10 2.56 56 71 3.43 0.38 2.85 0.96
10-07 10 2.14 62 77 2.64 0.76 2.84 0.56
20-07 10 2.06 70 81 2.42 1.47 2.69 1.20
31-07 11 0.98 76 86 1.08 1.99 2.60 0.47
10-08 10 1.00 78 87 1.09 1.78 2.56 0.31
20-08 10 1.77 78 87 1.93 1.42 2.40 0.95
31-08 11 1.57 78 87 1.71 0.86 2.24 0.33
10-09 10 1.06 77 86 1.17 1.21 2.04 0.34
20-09 10 2.01 74 84 2.27 0.46 1.83 0.90
30-09 10 1.77 71 82 2.05 0.47 1.60 0.92
10-10 10 1.58 70 81 1.85 0.11 1.58 0.38
20-10 10 1.48 63 76 1.85 0.11 1.48 0.48
31-10 11 1.57 62 75 1.99 0.11 1.38 0.72
10-11 10 1.48 72 83 1.69 0.12 1.14 0.67
20-11 10 1.13 82 89 1.21 0.08 0.90 0.39
30-11 10 0.85 85 91 0.89 0.18 0.70 0.38
10-12 10 0.58 88 93 0.59 0.22 0.55 0.26
20-12 10 0.56 89 94 0.57 0.24 0.54 0.27
31-12 11 0.53 90 94 0.54 0.35 0.58 0.31
10-01 10 0.00 90 94 0.00 0.93 0.59 0.34
20-01 10 0.00 90 94 0.00 0.38 0.61 0.23
31-01 11 0.00 91 95 0.00 1.72 0.63 1.09
10-02 10 0.00 95 97 0.00 0.70 0.65 0.05
20-02 10 0.00 99 100 0.00 1.42 0.69 0.73
28-02 8 0.00 100 100 0.00 1.42 0.83 0.59
10-03 10 0.64 96 98 0.62 0.62 1.04 0.20
20-03 10 0.94 94 97 0.92 1.14 1.18 0.88
31-03 11 0.62 92 96 0.61 1.42 1.38 0.65
10-04 10 1.48 90 94 1.50 0.85 1.58 0.77
20-04 10 1.93 89 94 1.95 0.76 1.78 0.93
30-04 10 2.17 79 88 2.34 0.76 2.09 1.01
365 47.29 55.21 24.98 59.00 21.65
96
Flow Rate for Laterals

In steady state design, the drain spacing is designed for the maximum drainage coefficient to cater for
maximum recharge condition. In transient flow the drain spacing is designed to maintain certain watertable
fluctuations during the season/year .Following equations can be used to determine the design discharge
determine the lateral size66:
Drains above barrier q = C 2ky0 (A)/L . 5.9

86400L
Drains on the barrier q = C 4KH2 (A)/L 5.10
86400 L
where:
q = discharge (cubic feet per sea per unit area);
Y or H = maximum height of watertable above drain invert;
K = Weighted average hydraulic conductivity of soil profile between
maximum water able and barrier or drain, feet per day;
D = average flow depth feet;
L = drain spacing feet;
A = area drained in square feet; and
C = area discharge factor.
Value of C for area drain are given in Table 5.9
Drain Depth
The desired drain depth is that which meets the criteria for watertable control at a minimum cost. Flow
equations indicate that drain spacing increases with depth with consequent decrease in its length per acre as
shown in Figure 5.11 based on an analysis carried out for Mardan SCARP83. For practical and economic
reasons, however, the depth of the drain cannot be chosen freely .The options are within a range of depths
whose limits are set by requirement of watertable for drainage and salinity control as well as by economic
and site specific factors such as, depth of impermeable layer, operational depth of trench machine, outlet
elevation etc. The minimum depth is also influenced by the strength of the drain pipe to withstand expected
loads and the rooting depth of crops. In case of deep uniform profiles, depth of drains can be determined by
cost effective analysis. Where gravity outlets are too shallow, an analysis of pumped outlet may also be
made. Various graphs given in Figure 5.11 are based on Mardan SCARP and indicate the relationship of cost
and other factors. Similar, study for the area under consideration can be taken up to arrive at the most
economical arrangement.
In an area with no inflow and outflow, the watertable in fallow season would fall to a depth (as a result of
evapotranspiration) where upward flow of soil moisture and salt transportation would be practically zero
and is called the 'Critical depth'. The drainage areas, however, are low lying areas where inflow continues
and for salinity control the drain depth needs to be such as to keep the watertable below the critical depth.
The critical depth may be defined as the depth at which the capillary upward transport becomes less than
0.5 mm/day. The minimum drain depth for watertable and salinity control is the maximum of the
following calculated values:
(a) The 'steady-state' drain depth which is the sum of: (i) the design watertable depth required from Table 5.2;
(ii) half the watertable rise caused by the maximum individual recharge from on-farm water application;
and (iii) a residual hydraulic head value 0.10m.
(b) The 'transient' drain depth which is the sum of: (i) the design watertable depth from Table 5.2; (ii)
the watertable rise resulting from the maximum individual recharge from on-farm water application;
and (iii) a residual hydraulic head value of 0.10 m. An alternative method is to use a dynamic water
balance for the whole year, keeping the maximum level of the watertable below the level specified
in Table 5.266.
(c) The drain depth for salinity control for fallow conditions i.e. 1.5m for coarse and fine textured soils
and 1.8rn for medium textured, plus the hydraulic head needed to discharge the water originating
from surrounding irrigated lands which, in the absence of specific local information, may be set at
0.2m.
97
Net length of the laterals(feet per acre)
DRA
400 2000 IN LAY

IN GPL
AVERAGE RATE OF DRAINA INSTALLATION

OW
(PIP
DRA EW
Drain center design assuming by 8 IN ITH
OU
LAY T
inches above trench bottom IN GPL GR
AVE
OW LE
(PIP NVE
EW LOP
1500 ITH
GR
AVE
E)
200 LE
NVE
LOP
E)
(FEET/HOUR)
1000
100
CAH
IN TR E
NCH
ER
500
0
4 5 6 7 8
DEPTH TO LATERAL CENTRAL(FEET)
5 6 7 8 10
DEPTH TO TRENCH BOTTTOM(FEEET)
Figure 5.11 a Figure 5.11 b
750
650
700
600
COST PER ACRE(US $)
s
ar
R
ye
A
YE
1
1
s
S
hr
HR
0
00
650
0
20
20
550
809 $/AC
COST PER ACRE US $
10000 AC
600 500 EA
R
3Y
s
S
ar
0 HR
ye
600 R
EA
2
4 Y EAR
s
RS
hr
Y
s
0 H RS 5
ar
s 0
ar
00
8 0 H
ye
00
550 ye 450 100
40
s4
s
hr
628 $/AC hr
00
20000 00
60
80
489 $/AC
500 40000
400
450 250
4 5 6 7 8 9
DEPTH TO LATERAL DRAIN (FT)
Figure 5.11 d
Figure 5.11 c
Figure 5.11(a): Net length of lateral / acre versus depth

Figure 5.11(b): Average speed of drain installation versus depth of trench
Figure 5.11(c): Four trencher operations
Figure 5.11(d): One trencher and one drain flow operation
98
650 800
COST PER ACRE/US $

600 700
550
600
TWO TRENCHES OPERATION
COST PER ACRE US $
20
00
500
HR
500
S
IY
FOUR TRENCHES OPERATION
40
EA
00H
R
TWO TRENCHES OPERATION AND PLOW
RS
450 400
OPERATION
2Y
EA
60
00 000
R
H
400 R
8
S
3
YE 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
H
R
AR
S
CONTRACT SIZE(thousans acres)

4
YE
AR
350
4 5 6 7
1100
1000 NOTE :
ASSUMES A DEPTH OF 20 FT TO THE BARRIER
LAYER,
9000 COMPARIOSNS ARE MADE FOR THREE
METHODS OF CONSTRUCTION AND ARE BASED
ON TOTAL OF 400 WORKING Hrs IN 2 YEARS
800
700
`
600
TW
O TRE
COST PER ACRE(US $)
N
CHE
ON FOU RS
ET R OPE
500 RE
N CH
TRE
NCHE
RAT
ION
A ND SO
ON PER
ED ATIO
RA N
400 INA
GE
PL
OW
OP
ER
AT
300 ION
200
120
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
SOIL PERMEABILITY (FEET/DAY)
Figure 5.11(e): Estimated Total Cost/Ac versus Depth to Center of Lateral for
Two-trencher Operation
Figure 5.11(f): Estimated Cost/Ac versus Contract Size
Figure 5.11(g): Soil Permeability versus Installed Cost per Acre
The watertable fluctuation is primarily caused by recharge from deep percolation losses, leaching, drainage
and evapotranspiration. Where the drain depth is shallow and the watertable fluctuate in the crop root zone,
evapotranspiration may cause a greater watertable drop rate than does the drainage system. With watertable
depths of more than 19m, this is unlikely to be so and the above procedure is based on watertable lowering
by drainage only. Calculations on the basis of steady state and transient watertable levels should, basically,
lead to the serine drain depth. However, variations in assumptions may cause some, usually slight
differences. The watertable recedes more slowly as it approaches the drain depth. In the intensive part of the
irrigation season it is unlikely to reach drain depth before the next water application. This has been expressed
in a residual hydraulic head value of 0.1m. In areas of high and continuous in-seepage an additional 0.2m
should be taken into account for hydraulic head needed to drain the seepage water.
99
Drain Spacing
Steady state and transient equation are considered equally applicable. Steady state equations are in wider use
however, the transient equations more closely describe watertable. Design and the drain spacing predicted by the
two methods is fairly close. In practice. Uncertainties related to basic assumptions used in the development of both
types of equations make them imprecise. Development of an average recharge rate for use in steady state equations
and single value of drainable porosity for a layered soil for use in transient equation is difficult. Neither approach to
the drain spacing problem is perfect. In the following, use' of both methods have been described through an example
for Mardan SCARP.
Example Given:
Drain depth 6.5 feet.
Depth barrier (D) 13 ft (10.9 after convergence correction).
Root zones 3.5 feet.
Hydraulic conductivity (avg) 3.28 feet/day.
Deep percolation (max) 0.0075 feet/ day
Specific yield 13%.
10-daily recharge from irrigation application (See table 5.4).
Steady State Solution

Deep percolation (q) 0.0075 feet/day
Maximum allowable watertable height (ho) 6.5 -3.5 = 3 feet
Using Donnan's formula:
L2 = 4k(H2-D2)
q
L2 = 4x3.28(13.92-10.9)2
.0075/2
L = 360 ft
If, as a variation, the drain is on the barrier, then D=O and H=3; 'q' is taken as 1/2 of the normal value (based
on experience). The drain spacing in this case therefore, would be:
L2 = 4x3.28(3)2
.0075/2
L2 = 31488
L = 177ft.
Transient Flow Solution

In applying transient flow equation the water level depth should not rise during irrigation season is
determined keeping in view the cropping pattern and root depth. Ten-daily recharge during the year is then
estimated (Tables 5.5 & 5.6). Watertable build up above drain level as a result of estimated recharge is then
determined by calculating parameter, KDt/SL2 and finding 'h/ho' from the graph given in Figure 3.8. To
begin with drain, spacing is estimated from equation and then parameter KDt/SL2 is determined and h/ho
found from graph. The exercise can be repeated by varying 'L ' till the water level during the cropping season
remains below the prescribed level. One such exercise for Mardan SCARP is given in Table 5.7 by using
drain spacing of 312 feet and the watertable fluctuation during the year is given in Figure 5.12. This example
has taken into account only one-year data. Farmers generally use crop rotation and the exercise can be
repeated for more than one year if necessary.
Drain Gradient
Drains are generally placed at uniform depths, therefore, the topography of the land many dictate the range of
grades available. Effort may, however, be made to obtain a grade that may result in a non-silting velocity
which experience has shown is about 0.43 m/s (1.4 ft/sec). Where siltation is a hazard and the velocity is less
than 0.43 m/s, the siltation may be prevented by providing filter and silt traps. The minimum grade for closed
drain should be 1/1000; however, steeper grades are more desirable. With steeper grades, the control during
100
construction can be less exacting and there is also less chance of drain clogging. In prescribing the grade of a
proposed drain, a slope easier for contractor to establish and for '. Inspector to check in the field may be used,
such as 0.002 instead of 0.00213. Flows in laterals vary from zero at the top end to full at junction with
collector. Drains are rarely designed to work under pressure. Because of linearly varied flow the head is only
1/3 of non-varied flow. The molded Mining formula reduces to:
Q = 3C D 267 I 0.5
where:
Q = discharge at end of pipe
C = 0.31/n;
n = Coefficient of rugosity of pipe
I = gradient; and
D = Inside diameter of pipe.
Four situations may arise.
i) Grade < I; pipe full and under pressure;
ii) Grade = I; pipe full, pressure zero at top end and increases towards junction;
iii) Grade > I and < 3 I; upper part of drain not full, but lower end under pressure; and
iv) Grade = 3 I; entire pipe not full.
Table 5.7: Watertable Response to Irrigation and Rainfall Recharge for 1 in 5 Wet Year
End of Number of Instantaneous Watertable H0 D+ho/2 KDt/SL2 H/ho h
interval days recharge build-up
Day- inches feet (feet) (feet)
Month
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
30-04 10 0 0 0 2.77 12.29 0.0316 0.836 2.32
10-05 10 0.84 0.070 0.54 2.86 12.33 0.0.320 0.835 2.38
20-05 10 0.94 0.078 0.50 2.98 12.39 0.0321 0.835 2.49
31-05 11 0.50 0.042 0.22 2.81 12.31 0.0391 0.836 2.35
10-06 10 0.48 0.040 0.31 2.66 12.23 0.0317 0.838 2.23
20-06 10 0.62 0.052 0.40 2.63 12.21 0.0317 0.838 2.20
30-06 10 0.96 0.080 0.62 2.82 12.30 0.0319 0.836 2.35
10-07 10 0.56 0.047 0.36 2.71 12.26 0.0318 0.837 2.27
20-07 10 1.20 0.100 0.77 3.04 12.42 0.0322 0.834 2.54
31-07 11 0.47 0.039 0.30 2.84 12.32 0.0319 0.836 2.37
10-08 10 0.31 0.025 0.20 2.57 12.19 0.0316 0.840 2.16
20-08 10 0.95 0.079 0.61 2.77 12.28 0.0318 0.837 2.32
31-08 11 0.33 0.028 0.21 2.53 12.16 0.0316 0.840 2.12
10-09 10 0.34 0.028 0.22 2.34 12.07 0.0313 0.842 1.97
20-09 10 0.90 0.075 0.58 2.55 12.17 0.0316 0.840 2.14
30-09 10 0.92 0.077 0.59 2.73 12.27 0.0318 0.837 2.29
10-10 10 0.38 0.032 0.24 2.53 12.16 0.0315 0.840 2.12
20-10 10 0.48 0.040 0.31 2.43 12.12 0.0314 0.841 2.05
31-10 11 0.72 0.060 0.46 2.51 12.15 0.0315 0.840 2.11
(Continued )
101
Table 5.7 (Contd.)
10-11 10 0.67 0.056 0.43 2.54 12.17 0.0315 0.840 2.13

20-11 10 0.39 0.033 0.25 2.38 12.09 0.0313 0.8422 2.00
30-11 10 0.38 0.032 0.24 2.25 12.02 0.0312 0.843 1.89
10-12 10 0.26 0.022 0.17 2.06 11.93 0.0309 0.844 1.74
20-12 10 0.27 0.023 0.17 1.92 11.86 0.0307 0.846 1.62
31-12 11 0.31 0.026 0.20 1.82 11.87 0.0306 0.847 1.54
10-01 10 0.34 0.028 0.22 1.76 11.78 0.035 0.848 1.49
20-01 10 -0.23 0.00 0.00 1.49 11.65 0.0302 0.850 1.27
31-01 11 1.09 0.072 0.55 1.82 11.81 0.0306 0.847 1.54
09-02 9 0.05 0.004 0.03 1.57 11.69 0.0303 0.849 1.34
18-02 9 0.73 0.061 0.47 1.80 11.80 0.0306 0.847 1.53
28-02 10 0.59 0.049 0.38 1.91 11.85 0.0307 0.846 1.61
10-03 10 0.20 0.017 0.13 1.74 11.77 0.0305 0.848 1.48
Figure 5.12: Watertable Response to Recharge from 1 in 5 Year Rain Plus Irrigation
Total Recharge 21.19 Inches (Mardan)
Drain Size
The design discharge of a lateral at its junction with the collector can be estimated from flow per unit length
determined by equation 5.9 or 5.10 as the case may be. If the drainage coefficient is also known then the
following equation may be used, for parallel drains:
102
qS(L + S / 2) (5.11)
Q=
43200
where:
q = drainage coefficient (in/hr); L = drain spacing (ft); and
Q = discharge (cfs) at junction; S = length of lateral (ft).
The discharge along the lateral varies from the minimum of per unit length (Q/L) to maximum (Q) at its
junction with the collector. In long laterals the variation in discharge may be great enough to warrant
changing size in the line. Depending upon the gradient and available standard sizes an exercise can be carried
out to determine sizes and lengths to be used in one line. Following table summarizes one such exercise
carried out for a 6000 feet long line using manning formula (Figure C-la given at end of chapter).
Table 5.8: Estimation of Tile Lengths and Sizes Required
Tile Size Maximum Capacity Accretion per 100; L- value Length of the tile
(cfs) line Number of 100 foot required
0.2% grade (cfs)
6 0.31 0.040 7.75 775
8 0.65 0.040 16.25 850
10 1.30 0.040 32.50 1625
12 1.90 0.040 47.50 1500
14 2.90 0.040 72.50 1250*
6000
*
Total length of the drain is 6,000 feet, and although the 14-inch tile would be adequate for 7,250 feet, only 1,250 feet is needed.
In areas where the laterals are required to cater for subsurface inflow from outside the project area or seepage
from the surface water bodies, the drain size needs to be increased to accommodate that flow.
Flow in drains is considered an open channel flow and are rarely designed to work under pressure. The size
of the drain depends upon the hydraulic gradient and roughness ~ coefficient (n). Materials commonly used
have 'n' value range from 0.001 for good quality clay and concrete tile with good "joint alignment to about
0.016 for corrugated plastic drainage tubing. To facilitate estimation of pipe size Figure B-l(a-c) at the end of
the chapter, gives the monographs for quick use. Shaded area is the zone where flow velocity is less than 1.4
feet per second indicate where drain filter may be required.
Size of the Collector
On account of a variable pattern of irrigation, collector receives water at different rates from laterals. Very little data
exist on which to base a rationalization of the reduction in flow received by collector drains. Following table
gives the approximate ratio between possible and maximum discharge of a collector drain:
Table 5.9: Area Discharge Factors
Area Drained Factor C
0-40 1.00
40-80 1.00-0.92
80-120 0.92-0.87
120-160 0.87-0.82
160-200 0.82-0.79
200-240 0.79-0.76
240-280 0.76-0.74
280-320 0.74-0.72
320-480 0.72-0.65
480-640 0.65-0.60
640-800 0.60-0.56
800-960 0.56-0.54
960-1120 0.54-0.52
1120-1280 0.52-0.5
1280-5000 0.5
Discharge anticipated at each junction point can be estimated from the above table knowing the area drained
up to that point. This along with gradient and roughness coefficient can help determine the size as discussed
under laterals.
103
Gravel Filter Permeable Envelope

Alluvial soils of nearly all textures in arid and semi-arid areas are categorized as hydraulically unstable and
require filter to stabilize and prevent sediment movement into the drains. Structurally stabilized soils though
does not require filter, yet may need pervious envelope to; increase their drainage efficiency especially for
fine textures soils with low hydraulic conductivity. Stable soils with relatively high hydraulic conductivity
may be drainable without a pervious envelope, but field experiments should be conducted before final design.
Though it is generally difficult to predict which soil can be drained without envelope material, yet following
table may provide some guidance of their silting tendency. The greatest filter need is for poorly graded non-
cohesive soils with higher percentage of silt and fine sand.
Soil Parameter Silting tendency
Uniformity Coefficient
> 15 nil
5 15 limited
5 high
Plasticity Index
> 12 nil
6 -12 limited
<6 high
All drains installed below existing watertable or in quick soil condition preferably be gravel packed. Drains
are normally gravel packed all around however, where, these are laid on impermeable layer the envelope may
be used only along sides and over top of the pipes.
Filter Design
Envelope gradation requirements for base material of silt loams, sandy clay loams and loams can be more
flexible than for base materials that have textures of fine to very fine sand, and majority of particles lie in
range of 50 to 100 microns. The velocity, however, at the interface between the base material and envelope is
so low that the fine textured base material is not likely to move even under excessive leaching conditions.
The gradation requirements therefore, should not be changed every time a different texture is encountered,
except for long sections of drain where the gradation and hydraulic conductivity of base indicate that a less
expensive or easier to obtain material can be used. The envelope should be well graded free of vegetable
matter, clays and other deleterious substances. All should press 1" screen and not more than 5% should
pass No.50 (0.297 mm) To be well graded the uniformity coefficient (CU = D60/D10) must be greater than 4
for gravels and greater than 6 for sands. In addition, the coefficient of curvature must be between 1 and 3
both for gravel and sand. Table 5.10 gives gradation relationship between base material and diameters of
graded envelope material.
(D 30 )2
Cc =
(D 10 ) (D 60 )
Table 5.10 Gradation Relationship between Base Material and Diameters of Graded Envelope Material
Base material Gradation Limitations of Envelope (Diameter of particle size) in mm
60% passing
(dia of particle in mm) Lower Limit % Passing Upper Limit % passing
100 60 30 10 5 0 100 60 30 10 5 0
0.02-0.05 9.52 2.0 0.81 0.33 0.3 0.074 38.1 10 8.2 2.5 - 0.59
0.05-0.10 9.52 3.0 1.07 0.38 0.3 0.074 38.1 12 10.4 3.0 - 0.59
0.10-0.25 9.52 4.0 1.30 0.40 0.30 0.074 38.1 15 13.1 3.8 - 0.59
0.25-1.00 9.52 5.0 1.45 0.42 0.3 0.074 38.120 20 17.5. 5.0 - 0.59
104
Recommendations of other research workers for filter design are as under (F for filter and S for Soil):
Terzaghi (1941)
D15F/D15s > 4 (For hydraulic conductivity)
D15F/D85s < 4 (For filter action)
Spadling (1970)
D15F < 5 D85S
D15F < 20 D15S Filtration criteria
D50F < 25 D50S
D85F > 5 D15S (for hydraulic conductivity)
U.S.D.A (1971)
D50F / D50S = 12-58 |
D15F / D15S = 12-40 | (For non uniform graded material)
Spadling criteria give somewhat finer gradation curve than of the USBR given in Table 5.10, others lie
between this range. It is not possible to recommend one over the other. It may be economically best to accept
any naturally available material, which falls within the limits, as a whole if the alternative is to sieve material
specially. Qazi 56, Des Bouvrie11 and Evans20 did further work and came up with the solution which gave a
relationship between the filter aquifer ratio and the standard deviation of the filter material (Figure 5.13).
where:
D50F / D50S = F and D95F-D50F =
A 1.645

Des Bouvrie found that the thickness of the filter depended on the F/A value as shown in Table 5.11
Table 5.11: Thickness of Filter for Values of F/A

F/A Filter Thickness(in)
12 0.50-1.0
12-24 3.0
24-28 6.0
28-40 9.00
It is obviously advantageous to restrict the F/A value to a minimum value of 12. This will fulfill the
conditions for a good filter, in that it will not be too thick and hence not too expensive. To exclude fines from
entering the pipe D85F should be greater than twice the entry width of the slots. Plastic pipe may be able to
fulfill this condition using graded sand filter but with clay pipes an aggregate filter would be required. This
could have the effect of increasing the F/A ratio.
In East Khairpur and Mardan tile drainage projects water borne; well-rounded graded material was used for
envelope. In Drainage-IV project near Faisalabad the envelope specifications indicated the grading
requirement and that permeability to be more than 50 metres per day and no specific mention was made for
the envelope to be well rounded and water borne. Consequently, the crushed stone envelope, which fulfilled
the specifications, was used in sump No.8. The drain performance studies indicated that the envelope did not
behave as an efficient filtering media and at places resulted in choking of the drains. Also, it appears that the
flow of this material through the tile laying machine was not free as it did not adequately enveloped the
drain. Subsequent, research indicated that though the envelope had fulfilled the specifications but its
permeability was excessive i.e. of the order of 300 metres per day, which probably resulted in free movement
of the soil particles through the interstices.
105
1 0
VE
9
CUR
C5 5
8
S A T A S F A C T O R Y F IL T E R
7
STANDARD DEVIATION (MM)
6
L O W E R L IM IT L IN E
U N S A T S F A C T O R Y
2
F IL T E R
F /A R A T IO
Figure 5.13: Filter Criteria for Tile Drains
Gap Width/Slot Size

For tile line to admit the drainage water when it arrives at the drain line requires consideration of
relationship among gap width/slot size, the hydraulic conductivity of envelope material and pipe dimensions.
The flow through a gap in case of tiles, and per foot length for plastic tubing, is given by the equation:
Q = b H K
where:
Q = rate of inflow through one gap (ft3/day);
K = hydraulic conductivity of envelope (ft/ day);
H = Average potential difference (ft);
and given as:
d d
H /H = I 22 + 29
160 H a
n = a/b
m = gap width/2b
= constant obtained from graphs.
The above equation is valid only when the tile line is not working under pressure. Figure 5.14 gives the
curves developed by USBR to determine . Since the drainage rate is known, these curves can be used to
examine several possible combinations of pipe diameter, pipe length, envelope thickness and its hydraulic
conductivity to arrive at economical and efficient arrangement. However, compensating low 'K' of envelope
by increasing its thickness should be done with caution. Never use an envelope material having less by
hydraulic conductivity than the base material. To keep head loss negligible in vicinity of joints 3 to 10 mm
gap width is advised for stable soils. For sandy and silty soils but jointed pipes are preferred. For plastic
tubing 6 to 9 cm2/metre open area is considered adequate. Greater area would reduce strength or greater wall
thickness will be required which will increase the cost. Open area is of not much significance in reducing
106
head loss when envelope is used. Drain pipes used in Netherlands as a rule have 6 rows of about 100
openings per metre with slot size of, 1 mm x 1 mm and 1 mm x 4 mm, thus giving an area of 10 to 30
cm2/metre.
9 .0
8 .0
7 .0
n = .0 3 6 .0
n = .0 4
n = .0 5
n = .0 7
5 .0
n = 1 .0
n = 1 .5
n=2
n = 2 .5
4 .0
F L O W E N T R IN G S P A C E D D R A IN T IL E F R O M
A GRAVEL ENVELOPE
3 .0
0 .0 0 2 0 .0 0 5 0 .0 1 0 .0 0 .0 2
m
C O N C E R E T E O R C L A Y P IP E
34
32
30
PER FOOT OF PIPE LENGTH
28
26
18
16
14
0 05 10 15 20 25 30
P L A S T IC T U B IN G
Figure 5.14: Flow Entering a Spaced Drain from a Gravel Envelope
Entrance Loss
The design equations assume that water as it reaches the drain line is admitted into the drain immediately and
without any loss in head. This assumption is not always true. Figure B-2 and B-3 (at the end of the chapter)
gives the theoretical prediction of the performance of various drain-pipes and also the effect of envelope. The
assumptions of the study are: (a) Uniform deep soils with 'K' more than 1 m/day; (b) Hydraulic conductivity
of backfill immediately around pipe or envelope is the same as that of undisturbed material. Although, only
drain qualities at the extreme right hand of the graph (Figure B-2) may be regarded as ideal, it may be noted
107
that various Q/K lines become horizontal virtually half way across the graph. This shows that watertable
height at mid spacing are relatively insensitive to drain quality except when this becomes rather poor. The
graph further shows that gravel envelope improve the drain quality of concrete or clay pipes more as
compared to corrugated plastic tubing, which may be due to equally spaced s1ots and more entry area
available in the later.
Sump and Pump Capacity

In areas where gravity outlet is not available, the drainage effluent is collected in a sump and then pumped
into gravity disposal system. In such cases sump and pump capacity is required to be designed. The first step
in the design is to estimate the maximum inflow rate (Q) by the equations:
Drain above the barrier
2 Kh o D
Q = C. (A / L )
L
Drain on the barrier
4 KH 2 A
Q = C.
L L
where:
Q = flow into sump (ft3 / sec);
K = hydraulic conductivity in ft/ sec;
ho, H = maximum height of watertable above drain invert level (ft.);
D = (D + ho/2) ft;
D = depth of barrier below drain (ft);
L = drain spacing (ft);
A = area drained in square feet; and
C = area discharge factor given in Table 5.9.
After the inflow rate is determined the cycling operation of motor and pump is required. The pump and motor
are most efficient, if operated continuously, however, up to 5 cycles per hour are considered satisfactory i.e.,
12-minute cycle (6 minute running and 6 minute rest).
The sump therefore, provide for 6-minute storage capacity below the centre of the outlet pipe. The on and off
levels for pump are generally 2 to 4 feet above the base of sump and not more than half diameter above the
pipe outlet respectively. The pump capacity is given by:
P = (V + Q.t ) /t
where:
P = pumping rate at maximum inflow rate (ft3/sec)
V = Sump storage between two levels (ft3)
t = operating time (sec)
Q = inflow rate (ft3 / sec)
The typical arrangement of sump is shown in Figure 5.15.
108
Margin of Safety
Margins of safety are normally included in the design of various elements of the drainage system. However,
only for a few of these is the margin expressed in numbers. Examples are in drain pipes which are sometimes
oversized by 25 to 40 percent to allow for a reduction in drain flow capacity due to sedimentation, and in the
greater thickness of granular envelopes to account for uneven distribution of materials. Collector drains are
sometimes oversized by 25 percent to exclude the possibility of temporary over pressure in drains. Most
other safety margins are included in the judicious selection of design parameters. The available information
is rarely sufficient to permit a rigid mathematical analysis and consequent statistical determination of
parameters. The experienced designer, seeking a safe functional design, will include safety margins in the
selection of representative values of hydraulic conductivity by rounding off conservatively. Or he will make
conservative assumptions in fixing the depth to a barrier layer, and in establishing the design discharge rate.
The extent to which this is being done will be related to local factors, including soil variability, climatic
variability, farmers' skills and irrigation management conditions.
shelter
meter
Door
service pole
220
stop collar
start collar
vent motor float switch
ground surface elevation=1306.0
elevation=1300.0
pump support
propller pump
start level
mini lift
max lift
pipe collector pipe collector

Float plug
Round sump
stop level
stiling chamber
concrete base
Figure 5.15: Typical Arrangement of an Automatic Sump Well
Differences in computed drain spacing can be as great as plus or minus 10 to 20 percent without being considered in
error. This tolerance allows small arbitrary adjustments in drain placement to fit field boundaries.
109
Plate 3: Use of Geotextile Filter and Tile Drainage Work at Progress in PCRWR
110
30
D R A IN D IA M E T E R
( F L O W IN G F U L L )
20
30
24 10
9
8
20 7
6
18
5
16
4
14
3
CAPCITY ( Cubic Feet per Second)

12
10
8
1
0 .8
6
0 .6
0 .4
1 0 .2
0 .1
0 .0 0
0.0004
0.0005
0.0006
0.0007
0.0008
0.0009
0.001
0.002
0.004
0.005
0.006
0.007
0.008
0.009
0.003
0.01
0.02
H Y D R A U L IC G R A D IE N T ( F e e t p e r F o o t )
Figure B-1a: Drain Capacity Chart (n=O.ll)
111
30
D R A IN P A R A M E T E R
(F L O W IN G F U L L ) 20
V=70
V=60
30
10
CAPACITY(Cubic Feet Per Second)

9 .0
8 .0
24
7 .0
6 .0
20
5 .0
18
V
4 .0
=
5
14
0
40 3 .0
14
12 30 2 .0
10
20
8 1 .0
10 0 .9
0 .8
0 .7
0 .6
6
0 .5
0 .4
5
0 .3
4
0 .2
0 .1
.00004
.00005
.00006
.00007
.00009
.00009
.0001
.0002
.0003
.0004
.0005
.0006
.0009
.001
H Y D R A U L IC G R A D IE N T (F e e t P e r F o o t)
Figure B-lb: Drain Capacity Chart (n=O.O13)
112
30
D R A IN P A R A M E T E R
(F L O W IN G F U L L ) 20
V=70
V=60
30
10
CAPACITY(Cubic Feet Per Second)

9 .0
8 .0
24
7 .0
6 .0
20
5 .0
18
V
4 .0
=
50
14
40 3 .0
14
12 30 2 .0
10
20
8 1 .0
10 0 .9
0 .8
0 .7
0 .6
6
0 .5
0 .4
5
0 .3
4
0 .2
0 .1
.00004
.00005
.00006
.00007
.00009
.00009
.0001
.0002
.0003
.0004
.0005
.0006
.0009
.001
H Y D R A U L IC G R A D IE N T (F e e t P e r F o o t)
Figure B-1c: Drain Capacity Chart (n=0.0IS)
113
10
`
`
9
8
7
6 h ta
5
ha
4 o
3 Q /K = S /2
.0 0 1
2
Q /K = .0 5
8
7 Q /K = .0 2
6
5
4 Q /K = .0 1
3
Q /K =
.0 0 5
(htk/S/2)
Q /K =
1 *1 0 -2 .0 0 1
8
Q /K =
6 .0 0 1
5
4
3
POOR D ra in Q u a lity in te rm s o f w a te r EXC ELLEN T
D ra in w ith p a rtia lly A ll p ip e s w ith g ra v e ls o f
b lo c k e d s lo ts o r g a p s S m o o th P la s tic s
o th e r h ig h ly p e rm e a b le
N o rm a l C la y w a re s u rro u n d e d
C a rro g a te d P la s tic s
Figure B-2: Graph relating htot/S/2 q/K in Terms of Water Entry Quality of the Drains
114
10
9
7
6
5
4
3 h ta
ha
2 o
S /2
8
7
6
5
4
Q/
K =
.0 3
3
(htk/S/2)
2 Q/
K
=
.0
2
Q
/K
1 *1 0 -2
=
.0
8
1
Q
/K
6 =
.0
5 03
POOR D ra in Q u a lity in te rm s o f w a te r EXC ELLEN T

D ra in w ith p a rtia lly b lo c k e d A ll p ip e s w ith g ra v e ls o f o th e r
s lo ts o r g a p s S m o o th P la s tic s
h ig h ly p e rm e a b le s u rro u n d e d
N o rm a l C la y w a re
C a rro g a te d P la s tic s
Figure B-3: Graph to Estimate Effect of Using Different Types of Drain
Q = design drainage rate, K= hydraulic conductivity
115
CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANACE
System Layout
The location of the main drain and lateral should be planned to obtain most efficient and economical drainage
system. Guidelines to follow are given below:
1. Provide the minimum number of outlets.
2. When practical, layout the system with long laterals and short mains, 250 to 400 metre for flat
areas and unto 1000 metre where land slope is favourable.
3. Laterals should be oriented to use available field slope to the best advantage.
4. Mains and sub-mains to follow general direction of natural waterways. Where main drain is
to be located parallel to a ditch deeper then drain, enough distance should be maintained
between the two to avoid washouts in the drain.
5. Avoid locations that result in excess cut and crossing of waterways wherever feasible.
6. Where feasible avoid soil conditions that increase installation and maintenance cost.
7. Steep gradients are preferable, minimum grade is 1 in 1000.
8. To permit cleaning, manholes are required at 300 to 350 m spacing.
Pipes for Drains

Pipes of clay, concrete, plastic or any other material that can perform the function and will not deteriorate with
time can be effectively used. Concrete and clay pipes can be manufactured with plain tongue and grooved or
bell and spigot ends. Lugs and wedges can be used to maintain the desired gap between the pipes as shown in
Figure 6.1. Corrugated plastic tubing manufactured in long rolls is serious competitor of clay and concrete
pipes on account of ease in transportation and mechanical handling. Local conditions however, still have
considerable influence in areas, where labour is still relatively cheap, where clay or concrete pipes can be
produced at low cost close to the project and laying conditions are suitable, there is little need to change from
using traditional material.
The other consideration in pipe selection is their hydraulic performance. The risk of unsatisfactory result in
unstable soil is lower with clay/concrete pipes because of their larger circumference as compared to plastic
pipes however, as permeable envelope is required in such cases therefore, there is little evidence to support
the choice of clay pipes for their better hydraulic performance. The corrugated pipes carry 25% less
discharge as compared to smooth pipes of same inner diameter and slope. There is little information to
determine minimum or optimal entrance area. Laboratory and field studies indicate 3 to 9 cm2 per metre
length. The slot width is dependent upon soil particle size, however, when filter is used small slots are not
116
favored. It is argued that if at all a soil particle has filtered through the envelope then it should pass through
the slot rather than blocking it. Slot width of 0.6 to 2 mm is in use. Pipe specifications for various materials
are briefly given in the following:
1 /8 //
c e n t e r in g w e d g e s p a c in g lu g t o u n g e
g ro o v e
T O U N G A N D G R O O V E T Y P E F O R C O N C R E T E P IP E
1 /2 //
1 /8 //
B E L L A N D S P IG O T T Y P E F O R C L A Y O R C O N C R E T E P IP E
U S E 4 W E D G E A N D L U G S F O R C O N C R E T E P IP E ( C L A Y P IP E S H O W N )
1 /8 //
1 /8 //
1 /8 //
S P A C IN G
LUG
P L A IN E N D T Y P E F O R C L A Y O R C O N C R E T E P IP E
Figure 6.1: Concrete and Clay Pipe
Rigid Pipes
The pipe should be strong enough to carry the backfill load. Table 6.1 and Figure 6.2 gives the estimated load
per linear foot on rigid pipes from the backfill for various depths and widths of the trenches. The estimates are
based on Marstons' formula, though slightly variable with diameter of the pipe, but are within the accuracy of
other factors and satisfactory for design purposes. Table 6.2 gives the allowable crushing strength for rigid
pipes. It is recommended that a factor of safety of 1.5 be used to determine the strength when this is determined
by physical testing. When gravel envelope is not used then only 75% of the strength indicated in Table 6.2 be
used.
117
Plastic Tubing
For plastic tubing Figure 6.3 gives the value of load coefficient (Cd) as related to height of filling (H), width of
trench (Bd) and fill material. As the flexible pipe deflect and transmit load to the bedding material, USBR
specification indicates that safe load is the one which causes deflection less than 10% when calculated by the
following formula:
= DC - Wc r3 / (El + 0.061E r3)
where:
= tubing deflection (in);
C = bedding constant 0.1 (gravel envelope);
Wc = vertical load from Figure 6.2;
r = mean radius of the tube; (inch)
E = modulus of soil reaction (700 lbs. per in2 for drain in gravel);
I = moment of inertia of tubing corrugations (ln4/linear in);
D = deflection lag factor of 1.5;
E = modulus of elasticity of tubing (lbs. per in2); and
El = 0.149 F/y.
where:
F is load per linear inch on a parallel plate test apparatus (sand bearing strength is 1.5 F), and y is
vertical deflection of tubing in inches.
Table 6.3 gives the weight of backfill causing 10% deflection on corrugated polythene tubing with a stiffness
equal to 40 lbs. per in2 (sand bearing). During laying the tubing stretches and care should be taken that it is less
than 5% or else the pipe may fail.
118
119
120
Example: A
Bd
5/-0
4 4//-9
4 -6
y 4/-3
Wet Cla
3 4/-0
Dry Clay 3/-9
soil
ted Top Wc
3/-6
Satura
lb/ft W
Sand Grvel 3-3
3 3500 lb/ft
2.0 3000 3-3 130
52500 2-9
2 2000 120
1500 2-6 4
7 110
1000 2-3
6
1.5
500 2-0 100
1-9 90
1
0 1-6 80
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1213 14 15
H/Bd
Figure 6.2: Chart and Nomogram for Estimating Back fill Load on a Rigid Pipe in Trench
4 LA Y
TC
WE
LA Y
DRY C TO PSO
IL
RATED
SATUT
RAVEL
3 SAND AND G
W C =C dw b D 2( for rigid pipe)
2 W C = C dw B cB d( for flexible pipe)
w here
W c= Load on pipe lb/ft
C d= Load cofficient
w = U nit w ight fill lb/ft3
B c= O utside dim eter pf pipe ft
1 B d= w idth of the ditch at top of pipe, fy
H = H eight of the fill above top of pipe, ft
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Figure 6.3: Load Coefficient for Computing Weight of Backfill (Marston)
121
Table 6.3: Load Coefficient for Computing of Backfill (Marstone)
Inside diameter (in) Deflection (in) Vertical load (Wc) lbs./ft
4 0.4 1500
5 0.5 1872
6 0.6 2256
8 0.8 3000
Laying of Pipe Drain

For pipe drains to be as effective as predicted by the design data, these should be placed on a stable undisturbed
bed. This is only possible by installing the pipe in a dry trench, which generally is not the case. In case of
concrete or clay tiles, the trench in unstable soil can be dewatered by using well points, which though expensive
yet necessary for the effective drains. If bell and spigot type joint is used, then bell should always be upgraded.
Use of plastic tubing and modern trenching machines has rendered dewatering un-necessary. However, when
the base material is highly unstable the shield may not prevent the base material mixing with the envelope,
reducing the hydraulic conductivity resulting in mal-functioning of the drain. When back filling of the trench is
required, then the first one foot fill over the envelope should be placed carefully before starting the general
backfilling. Aggregate larger than 5" in diameter should not be permitted within one foot above the pipe.
Special compaction of backfill is not required except when drain crosses below irrigation or surface drainage
ditches. The practice of flooding the drain trench to consolidate the backfill should be avoided as it may create
an ideal situation for migration of fines into drain or envelope. The fill may be allowed to consolidate under
natural rainfall or by ground water itself. In irrigated areas to prevent surface water a bund on either side of the
drain 1 m away may be constructed and this material later on can be used to fill any settlement due to natural
compaction.
Manholes
Manholes, generally in the collector line, are used as junction boxes, silt and sand trap, observation wells,
discharge measuring facilities, entrance to the drain for maintenance and to permit easy location of the drain. If
manhole is not justified than Y or T sections or holes made in collector pipe can be used to connect the tile
line with collector.
Surface Inlets
Surface water should not be allowed to enter the tube drains. If at any place it is inevitable then it should enter
through a manhole. A self cleaning trash rack is installed in open drain to prevent debris and also a silting pond
provided to desilt the water before entering the closed drain.
Outlet Structures
The outlet end of pipe drains needs to be protected. Cement asbestos or other more durable and strong pipes
may be used in the last 12-15 feet. A screen should be placed at the end to prevent rodents from entering the
pipe.
Operation and Maintenance

Tile drainage system properly installed reportedly requires very little maintenance. However, to make sure that
the system laid out has stabilized, newly constructed systems require close vigilance during initial years of
operation. Proper care during early years will increase the effectiveness of drains and often eliminate the need
for future costly maintenance.
Drainage system's partial or complete failures are generally associated with unstable soil causing dislocation of
joints, pipe failures, plugging of drain pipes, manholes and outlets. Frequent inspection of manholes and outlets
and their cleaning if necessary, would save the plugging of the system. Any settlement around the manholes
122
and drain lines should be immediately repaired. Deep sinkholes on drain lines are indications of joint opening
or pipe failure. In such cases the pit should be excavated up to the drain depths and repairs carried out, if
necessary.
Immediately after the completion, observation of flow at each manhole and at outlet should be initiated and
record maintained properly. If discharge at any point drops suddenly, additional investigations should be made
to ensure that the line is not partially or completely blocked. Growth of shrubs and trees along or near the drain
lines should not be allowed as their roots will close the drains. If roots are identified as the cause of choking
then drains should be treated with copper sulphate to kill the roots.
123
MONITORING AND EVALUATION OF

DRAIN AND SYSTEMS
Purpose
A great deal are known about performance of drain-pipes and envelope material under ideal conditions, but
what will happen under a particular soil condition and construction method used can hardly be predicted. In
countries with a long tradition of drainage certain practices have become established which results in failures
being a rare event. It may not be possible to know precisely the physics by which the failures were avoided and
by what margin, but in practical terms it works. This is however, an unsatisfactory basis for transferring that
experience to a new area. Testing therefore may be regarded as a means of eliminating something, which
proves unsuitable for unforeseeable reasons and as a mean of building up the necessary experience and
confidence to proceed with large-scale projects.
Performance Criteria
The water inlet openings and the hydraulic properties of the envelope material and the backfill essentially
govern performance of drain. Other factors indirectly affecting these two factors are distribution and thickness
of the envelopes; stability of backfill; conditions at the time of pipe laying and trench width. Under ideal
conditions the drain would have zero entrance head loss, a situation assumed in deriving various drain spacing
formulae. In practice, however, certain entrance head loss is inevitable and would be function of above factors.
Therefore, entrance resistance (Re) defined as entrance loss per unit length flow rate and entrance loss (he) as
percent of total head can be used as performance criteria for the drain line. The following table gives the
recommended criteria:
Table7.1: Performance Criteria
Criteria Drain line performance
A. Entrance Head-Loss (% of total)
< 0.2 Good
0.2-0.4 Moderate
0.4-0.6 Poor
> 0.6 Very poor

B. Entrance Resistance (days/m)
< 0.75 Good
0.75-1.5 Moderate
1.5-2.25 Poor
> 2.25 Very poor
124
Testing Drain Line Performance

General Considerations
(1) The specific objective of test must be clearly spelled out before initiating the test. Some of the
objectives may be:
(a) Selection of best and cheapest type of drain pipe and envelope material;
(b) Selection of installation method i.e. trenching, handless narrow or wide trenches etc.; and
(c) Impact of pre-selected drainage intensity on watertable regime and salinity control.
(2) After establishing the objectives, the suggestions for selection of combination of drainpipe, envelope
material, pipe laying technique and trench width are:
(a) Select trench width on basis of what would be practical and economical for the soils to be drained.
(b) Selection of pipe laying technique depends on soil type, drain depth, rate of laying and cost
factors. It is recommended to include in test only those methods that have proven successful
elsewhere under similar conditions; and
(c) Selection of combination of pipe and envelope material must be made on the basis of local
availability, cost of production, soil type and experience available.
(3) Select the test site that is representative of the soils to be drained and their hydrologic conditions. If
there are differences in water transmitting properties between parts of the area, then better drainable
area should be selected first. Specific problem soils are included only if their aerial extent so warrant.
The soils of the test site should be homogeneous from Pedagogical and hydrological point of view.
Heterogeneity complicates the evaluation of results.
(4) Install the drains under dry weather condition and under field condition which is representative of
those normally prevailing during large scale implementation i.e. soils humidity and watertable
elevation.
(5) The minimum number of test drain lines in any test unit is three, so as to permit the measurement of
the performance of the middle line by protecting it from side effects. A desirable practical number is 4
or 5 thus permitting evaluation of 2 or 3 drains respectively. The number of test units for each soil
type to be tested depends on the number of combinations of pipes and envelopes to be tested as well as
on number of replicates for each soil type. Replicates in actual practice are limited to 2 to 3 and the
results are not to be considered as statistically proven (sample too small in comparison to variations
expected) but provide indications of what may be expected.
(6) In addition to uniform irrigation on the intervening plots, the length of the plot should not be less than
four times the drain spacing to avoid end effects on observations. Since watertable regime itself is not
of prime importance in study of a single drain line, the drain spacing becomes irrelevant. A practical
spacing would be 30-50 metre.
(7) With two pipes and 3 envelope materials and two replicates would require the size of trial area of the
order of 40-45 hectares. Figure 7.1 shows a layout, the buffer plots between the units serve to reduce
hydrologic interference between the neighbouring units.
Buffer plots
Buffer plots
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
A B
` ` `
collector collector
drain drain
` ` `
C D
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Figure 7.1: Layout of the Experimental Set up
125
Plate 4: Excavation Work and Laying of Pipe and Gravel Packing by

PCRWR Drainage Research Centre at Tandojam in Sind Province
126
Field Measurements
(1) Observation during 2 or 3 drainage events are usually adequate. The drainage events should be well
spread over the drainage or irrigation season. One event is likely to last 2-7 days after heavy rainfall
and 5-15 days after irrigation application. Readings would be analysed after each event and a
complete evaluation should be made at the end of the drainage season. Further observations might
then be justified if the results suggest progressive changes with time showing unstable conditions in
the trench zone.
(2) Measurements of drainage rate and watertable elevation should be made once a day during drainage
events, i.e. during recession of the watertable starting from 50 cm below the natural surface at mid
point to when it fall unto drain level. A frequency of twice a day may be required in soils with rapidly
fluctuating watertable. The drain flow may preferably be made manually with a container of known
volume and a stopwatch.
(3) For water level measurement plastic tube piezometers of 20-50 mm diameter may be installed as
shown in Figure 7.2. Tubes <20 mm and >50 mm are not recommended because of capillary effect in
earlier and time lag in the later. The working of a piezometer can be checked by adding water to it and
observing if it quickly recedes to original level.
PIEZO M ETER
AU GER HO LE
TUBE AB OUT
2CM
W ATERTABLE
UPPER PART
SEALED W ITH
THE PO W DER ED
CLAY
W ATER ENTR Y W ATER ENTRY ATTIP

AT ALL POINTS O N LY
C O AR SE
SAN D O R
G R AVEL
Figure 7.2: Auger Hole and Piezometer Showing Essential Differences
(4) The piezometer for most studies are recommended to be installed in three lines perpendicular to drain
line emanating from points 1/4, 1/2 and 3/4 along the drain length. Each line consists of piezometers
just outside the trench, at 1/8 of drain spacing and at mid spacing (Figure 7.3). Piezometers need to be
located with reasonable degree of accuracy.
127
DRAIN NO 3
DRAIN NO 2
DRAIN NO 1
S /2 S /2
R O W III
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
L R O W II
4
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 26 27 28 29 30 31 32
S /B S /B
ROW I
33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48
0 .4 M
FROM ALL
S D R A IN S
O P E N D IT C H C O L L E C T O R
Figure 7.3: A Layout of Test Drains and Piezometers and their Numbering System
Data Recording and Processing
The soils and other data collected is recorded and processed as given in performa F.1 to F.4 at the end of
chapter. The entrance resistance (Re) and ratio ho/htot as discussed earlier are calculated to study drain
performance.
Testing Drainage Systems

Purpose
Field investigations are carried out to estimate certain design parameters, which with the help of drainage
equations permit selection of drain spacing and depths. Will these calculated drain spacing and depths bring
about the desired watertable control is a question with uncertain answer. Drainage equations used may be over
simplified models of a very complex reality, and the alluvial aquifer through which water moves is not isotropic
and homogeneous. Hydraulic conductivity, infiltration rate and drainable pore spacing may vary in adjacent
plots by several hundred percent, and so may do the soil water storage and recharge to groundwater reservoir
stemming from irrigation losses and rain. The calculated drain spacing is therefore, looked upon rather
academic and needs to be tested in the field prior to large-scale application. The testing of a system would
provide:
(1) Watertable regime as induced by the experimental depths and spacing of drains; and
(2) Average values of hydraulic conductivity, storage capacity, drainable porosity etc. over the sample
area.
Both types of information would provide the means to rationalise the drainage design and establish adequate
systems. Such information can be obtained with only slight modifications to the measurement systems
suggested for single drain line testing. The information collected is expected to be sufficiently accurate for the
design of drainage systems for larger areas. Further refinement, which requires long term studies may be
128
undertaken simultaneously with the installation of the drainage systems and the design being progressively
refined as better data becomes available.
Studies relating crop yield to watertable regime or water and salt balance may take several years but for the
verification of initial drainage concepts and related assumptions, the period of testing may vary from few
months in case of irrigated areas to full rainy season in the humid zones. Technically, the observations made
during one drainage event may be adequate, however, various inaccuracies warrant observations during more
than one such event. The chances of being able to observe one full and uninterrupted watertable recession in
rain-fed areas are limited either due to insufficient rise of the watertable or additional rains during the recession.
General Procedure
Since at most sites the testing of single line and the system may be combined, the guidelines in addition to those
for single line include the following:
(1) Establish specific purpose of testing such as: verification of assumptions on drainage system and its
intensity; specific design factors; or collection of information on soils, sub-strata and elements of
ground-water regime etc.;
(2) Select drain depths and spacing to be tested, drainage method and materials, and construction
techniques. Drain depth in irrigated areas should not normally be less than 1.8m. One test depth may
be adequate however, where available machines and soil conditions permit greater depths or when
long-term salt-water studies are envisaged, two test depths are recommended. The test spacing should
include those that are at least one hundred percent wider and smaller than the theoretically calculated
spacing. Normally, three-test spacing is sufficient. Spacing of 100 m or more are unlikely to yield
short term design information because, their size (100m x 400m) of over 4 ha makes it difficult to
irrigate two such size plots simultaneously in such a manner that a uniform watertable rise may occur.
Approximately 75 m may be considered as an upper limit for short-term design purposes. Once an
adequate information and understanding have been developed for this, the results can be extended to
larger spacing;
(3) Select a test site that is representative of the soils to be drained and their hydrologic conditions.
Examine soil and water conditions in detail i.e. soil texture and structure, infiltration rate, hydraulic
conductivity, water retention of soils above the drain level, clay mineral, soil and water salinity etc.;
and
(4) Layout of test plots is similar to drain line testing as given in Figure 7.1. However, to reduce
hydrologic interference between adjacent plots following precautionary measures are suggested:
(i) Width of buffer plots between two units to be equal to or greater than the larger drain
spacing of the two adjacent units;
(ii) Difference in drain depth between adjacent units, if any, should be as small as possible and
not more than 30-40 cm; and
(iii) Difference in drain spacing between adjacent units should correspond to the smallest step.
Testing and Measurement

The basic observations relate to the drain outflow and watertable elevation i.e. similar to the single line drain
testing. The observation wells, equal to depth of the drains, are used to measure water level to determine
watertable profile. Watertable, in addition to on the drain and at mid spacing, is also observed at 0.5 and 5 m
from the drain. Where drain spacing are more than 75 m one well at 10-15 m is also recommended. Some
observations at upper and lower ends of units are also made. It is recommended to use few recorders for both
water level and discharge observations to interpret and extrapolate data from non-recording devices. Sample
layout of observation pipes is given in Figure 7.4.
129
1 1
4 4
2
4 4
1 1 1
2
3
collector drain
3 4 5
4
3
2
1
1 1
4 4
4 4
4
1 1
Figure 7.4: Example of Network of Observation Wells in a Test Unit
Comparing the need of systems testing with those of single line it will be appreciated that additional wells are
required for the earlier. Also that in case of systems testing observation wells instead of piezometer are
recommended and used. The frequency of measurement depends on local conditions however, following
guidelines may be used:
Water Level
(i) One measurement before the drainage event i.e. just before irrigation application;
(ii) One measurement at the end of water application;
(iii) Three times per day during periods of high watertable i.e. 3-5 days after irrigation; and
(iv) Twice daily during remaining days between two irrigations.
Discharge
(i) Three times per day during periods of high discharge i.e. 3-5 days after irrigation on heavy rains;
(ii) Twice daily during remaining days between two irrigations or in rainy climates, during periods of
distinct increases or decreases in discharge rates;
(iii) Once daily in periods of low and more or less consistent outflows.
130
Analysis of Data
For steady state design purposes hydraulic conductivity (K), drainage rate (q) and depth to impervious layer (D)
are required. If transient flow conditions are to be accounted for in design then in addition to above, the
drainable porosity (S) is also required. In pre-design survey most of this data is estimated from field
observations, which not only give point values but are also based on a limited sample. The analysis of data
from the experimental set-up on the other hand enables to determine values which may represent several
hectares and are of considerable help in interpretation of pre-design survey results. The analysis of data
depends upon particular objective and also the drainage equation to be used for design purposes. In the
following an analysis procedure is demonstrated with respect to Hooghoudt's and Glover-Dumm equations.
Steady State Condition

To proceed with the analysis the discharge rate (q) and the water level (h) data is plotted against time (days)
and the best-fit line drawn through the points. Also plot q against h as obtained from the above two
graphs and shown in Figure 7.5C.The Hooghoudt equation for isotropic homogeneous aquifer can be written
as:
q = Ah + Bh2 ... (7.1)
where: Ah gives the contribution from below the drain level and Bh2 from above the drain level. If
contribution above the drain level is negligible then the plot of q versus h
Q
m /d a y Q
A q = 8K d h + 4 K h 2
m /d ay C S2 S2
2 q =8Kdh + 4Kh2
h S2 S2
h
m e ter 1
B
h in m e ters
0 2 4 6 8 S2
d ay s
q /h q = 8K d h + 4 K h 2
d ay -1 * 10 -2 h S2 S2
8
6
tan = 4 K / S 2
D
4 q = 8Kdh
2
h S
0
0 0 .2 0 .4 0.6 0 .8
D
h (m )
Figure 7.5: Plots of Discharge Versus Time (A), Head Versus Time (B), Discharge Versus
Head (C) and Q/H Versus H (D)
would fall on straight line, otherwise it would be a curve as shown in the diagram. Thus the shape of plot can
give status about the flow condition. The equation (7.1) can be re-written as:
q/h = A + Bh (7.2)
which is an equation of a straight line if q/h is plotted against h as shown in Figure 7.5 (D). The intercept on
q/h axis give A and slope of the line gives B. Therefore:
131
B = tan = 4 K/L2 (7.3)

and,
A = 8 KD/L2 (7.4)
2
From equation (7.3) knowing L the value of K can be calculated and from (7.4) value of d can be
determined. With known value of L and d, from Table 3.1, the actual depth to the impervious layer D can
be determined. However, if the drain radius is appreciably different from that of the Table 3.1, then nomogram
given in Figure 7.6 can be used to determine D/u and the D. It will therefore, be appreciated that this
analysis can be used as a feed back to rationalise design and interpret field surveys.
Non-Steady State Conditions

Under Non-Steady conditions the discharge and head relationship is governed by the following equation:
Q (t) = 2 h (t) (7.5)

j
j = L2
2 KD
Q(t) = 2KD h(t)
where:
Q(t) = discharge rate (m/day);
h(t) = hydraulic head (m);
K = hydraulic conductivity (m/day);
D = depth of impervious layer below drain level (m);
L = drain spacing (m); and
j = ground water reservoir coefficient.
To include radial resistance near drain D value may be replaced by Hooghoudts d.
Example
The data analysis and evaluation procedure in case of non-steady state flow is demonstrated as following:
Consider an experimental field drained by a tile drainage system with drain spacing 30 m, radius r=0.1 m, and
depth of drain 1.8m. On certain day 140 mm water applied in the field of which 40 mm percolated below root
zone and added to ground water-table as recharge. Measurements of discharge, water-table depth measured
several time a day. From experimental data parameters such as ground water reservoir coefficient (i) hydraulic
conductivity (K); transmissivity (KD) and effective porosity () can be determined.
Calculation of Reservoir Coefficient

The reservoir coefficient may be calculated as following:
- Plot observed discharge rates (mm or m/day) versus time fitting line Fig. 7.7(A)
- Plot hydraulic head values (mm or m) versus time fitting line Fig. 7.7(A)
- Read from two graphs the corresponding values at the end of the day and prepare data as
given in Table 7.2
Table 7.2: Recharge/Discharge Rate and Corresponding Hydraulic Head

T (days) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
R (mm) 40 - - - - - - -
Qt(mm/d) 14.4 5.9 4.4 3.4 2.6 2.0 1.6 1.2
Ht (mm) 495 430 340 265 260 165 125 100
Plot q(t) and/or h(t) values from this table versus time on semi log paper and obtain lines Fig 7.7 (B). Ground
water reservoir coefficient (j) can be calculated from equation.
I/j = 2.3[log h(t1) log h (t2)]
t2-t1
and
132
I/j = 2.3[log q (t1)-logq(t2)]

t2-t1
t2-t1
I/j = 2.3 tan
tan = 1
t2-t1
tan = 1 = 0.105
9.5
j = 1 = 4.1 days
2.3 x 0.105
Calculation of Hydraulic Conductivity and Transitivity.
- Plot q(t) versus h(t) values obtained from Figure 7.7(A) and find q =0.0127
h
Kd = q L2
h 2
2
Kd = 0.0127(30)
2 x 3.14
Kd = 1.8 m2/day
Hooghoudts d=1.97
K = 0.9 m/day
Transmissivity KD = 0.0 x 3
= 2.7 m2/day
The data from table is plotted as shown in Figure 7.7 (B) on semi-log graph paper. The data thus plotted is
analysed to determine drainage intensity factor (), hydraulic conductivity and transmissivity for the area under
study.
At certain time tA after cessation of the recharge the Glover-Dumm equation can be written as:
= 2.3 log ho/ht
where:
= Kd/SL2
S = drainable pore space
hor = initial water level (m)
ht = water level at time t (m)
t = time in which the watertable falls from ho to ht (days)
133
D/u D, d
1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8
2.0
Nomograph for
Hooghoudt's 'd'
50 80 150 2.1
20 30 40 60 100 200 D, d value acording to
D
100
2.2 d=
90 8D D
80 2.3 D0 ln +1
U S = 40
D 0C
S U
70
2.4
60
2.5 13
3.5
50 rise curve
2.6 3.8
45 d=37
P
2.7
40 10
` 2.8
35
`
` 2.9 to use;
30
` 3.0 (1) sellect the appropriate value of D/u and D.
`
25 `` 3.1 (2) Connect the sellected D/u on the left hand
`` 2.0 scale with D on the right hand scale.
` 3.3 (3) Find the point P where connection line and
20 `` 3.4
` selected L-scale intersect.
18 ` 3.5
` (4) Read value of P on the right hand D,
` 3.6
16 ` d -scale as Hooghoudt's d-value.
` 3.7
14 ` 3.8
` 3.9
`
12 ` 4.0 Example;
``
`` 4.2 If D/u =15 and D = 10 m, then with L=40m,
10 ``` 4.4
` read d=3.7
8 ` 4.6
`` Note
8 ` 4.8
`` If D<2 use ERNST or calculated d with the
`` 5.0 above formula
7
`` if D>1/2 L use D=1/2L
6 `` 5.5
````
``
5 `` 6.0
4.5 `` 6.5
`
4 2.0
7.5
3.5 8.0
3
` 9.0
2.5 10
12
2
15
1.8
17.5
1.6 2.0
25
1.4
30
1.2
40 60 100 200
1
10 20 30 50 80 150 L
Figure 7.6: Monograph for Hooghoudts d value
134
T=1
10 WHERE
Q=14.4
Hydraulic Head Dicharge Rate

mm mm/day 8
800 16
A 6
T=2
600 12 3
4
4 C
400 He 8 5
ad
s 6
Dic 7
200 ha 4 2
rge
8
0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 100 200 300 400 500
Watertable position and discharge rates Plots of q(t) versus time and h(t) versus time, Data
observed and converted into hydraulic taken from Table 7.2
Discharge rate
heads (mm) and discharge rates (mm/day)
mm/day
HYDRAULIC HEADS 20
(mm) 2000
10
1000
500 B 5
110g
cycle q(t)
h(t)
100 1
0.5
50
10 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Plot of q(t) versus time and h(t) versus time, Data taken from Table 7.2
Figure 7.7: Plot of Discharge and Head Versus Time (B) and Discharge Rate Versus Head (C)
Also the additional equations based on (7.5) which are useful and given below:
.t = 2.3 log qo/qt . (7.6)
135
Plate 5: Drainage in Operation at PCRWR Drainage Research Center at Tandojam in

Sindh Province of Pakistan
136
Blank page
137
F-1
SHEET FOR RECORDING BASIC SITE DATA

(Size-soils-test preparation)
Observer's name...................................................................................... Date:................................................
Location of Site....................................................................................... Approximate size..............................
Topography: flat/uniform slope/shallow depressions ..............
Soils: (information on upper 4m)
Texture Structure Colour Mottling
.. ... .
.. ... .
Other characteristics ..................................
Particle size distribution Layer <2 2-20 20-50 50-100 >100
(micron) 1.
2 ...................................
Salinity: Layer Soluble salt content EC
(Na++K+) (Ca+++Mg++) SO4 CL HCO3
...................................................
...................................................
pH:............ Hydraulic conductivity....................................................................................
Soil moisture content at drain depth: .
Soil information below 4 metre depth :........................
Depth to impermeable layer :...............................
Climate: arid/semi arid/sub humid/humid...........................................................................................
specify annual rainfall distribution
138
F-1 (contd)
Observations:
Drain Installation
date of installation...................................................
conditions during installation:. .........................
- weather ...........................
- soil moisture profile ...........................
- Watertable elevation ...........................
- other observations ...........................
Installation operation
- type of machine............. trench width.............
- trench bottom shape........ trench wall stability......
- blinding material used.................................
- has backfill been compacted....... if so, how?..........
- general evaluation: well/fairly/poorly installed.......
Quality of concrete/clay pipes:
hardness:.................. ............. ............
straight/curved............. ............. ............
cut straight/oblique........ ............. ............
degree of fit............... ............. ............
percentage of breakage...... ............. ............
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Layout of test plots:
139
F-2
SHEET FOR RECORDING BASIC PIEZOMETER DATA
Drain lines Drain line No
* type of pipe............... * distance of piezometer from out-fall
* diameter of pipe : outer...... cm Row I............................(m)
inner.......cm Row II...........................(m)
* type of envelope............... Row III..........................(m)
* thickness of material........and * level of top of piezometers
distribution around pipe....... or of wells........................
* envelope grading criteria used.. * level of outlet pipe...............
* drain spacing................(m) * date of installation of
* average depth.......(m) piezometers.........................
* length of drain..............(m)
* area drained..................(m)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Row Piez: Distance U Levels with respect to top of piezometer
No. from drain Bottom Land Crest of Mid. of Remarks
(m) of piez. Surface drain pipe drain pipe
U (m) (m) (m) (m) ..
A1
U A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8..
1 20m 1.65 0.21
2 5m 1.67 0.18
I 3 0.4m 1.64 0.20
4 0.4m 1.63 0.18 1.49 1.56
5 5m 1.62 0.15
6 20m 1.69 0.12
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6
7
II 8
9
10
11
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
11
12
III 13
14
14
140
F-3
SHEET FOR FIELD RECORDING AND COMPUTING WATER LEVELS IN PIEZOMETERS
Experimental Data
Field ______________________
Drain line ___________________
Date and hour of observation _______________days after irrig.____________
Date of last irrig. _______________
Duration of last irrig._______________
Soil surface conditions dry/moist/wet
Drain out-fall conditions free/submerged
Observer: _______________
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Row Piez. Observation Calculations
Well --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No. W.L W.L. in W.L. in W.L. above he/htot re=he/qu B B B B B B B B B B
on surface Piez. Piez. from mid drain

from top surface
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
B1 B B B2 B B B3 B4 B (B4-A5)
B B (A7-B4)
B B B he/htot re=he/qu
B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 0.50 0.29 1.06 = htot B B
2 0.78 0.60 0.78 0.45 1.7

3 1.08 0.88 0.48 = he B B
I 4 drain 1.05 0.87 0.51 = he B B
5 0.5 0.82 0.67 0.74 0.51 1.8

6 0.56 0.44 1.00 = htot B B
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6 = hm B B
7
8 = he B B
II 9 drain = he B B
10
11 = hm B B
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
11 = hm B B
12
13 = he B B
III 14 drain = he B B
15
16 = hm B B
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Outflow Observation V/t=Q Q qu=Q/L Special
B B
Obs.time V(cm3) P Pt(sec) (cm3/sec) P (m3/d)

P (m2/d) P P Observations P P
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
B5 B6 B7 B8=B6/B7 B9=B8x.086 B10=B9/L
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
09.00 hr 10000 13.5 740.7 64.0 0.291 Piezometer
09.45 hr 10000
U 13.9 719.4 62.2 0.283 no 11 missing
mean qu=0.287 B B
141
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Ami, S.R. et al. 1978. "Designing and Installing Sub-Surface Drainage Laterals Less than 100mm in
diameter". Canadian Agriculture Engineering, Vol. 20, No.1
2. Awan, N.M. et al,.1972; "Moving Watertable in Tile Drained Soils". ASCE: IR-3.
3. ----- 1980; "Sub-Surface Drainage", class notes: CEWRE bulletin No.4.
4. Bear, J. et al. 1966. "Flow from Infiltration Basin Into Drains and Wells"; American Society of Civil
Engineers, HY-2.
5. Bouwer, H. et al. 1959; "Drainage of Agricultural Land Using Interceptor Lines". ASCE Proc. 85
(IR): 13-25.
6. 1969a. "Salt Balance, Irrigation Efficiency and Drainage Design". ASCE. Irrg. and Drain. Div. 95:
153-170.
7. 1970. "Interceptor Drain Recovery of Canal Seepage"; ASAE. Trans. Vol.14, No.4, pp.738-741.
8. Broughton, R.S. et al. 1974. "A Laboratory Test of Some Drain Tube Filter Material". Canadian
Agriculture Engineering, Vol.16, No.2.
9. "Tests of Filter Materials For Plastic Drain Tubes", Am. Soc. Agr. Eng. Third National Drainage
Symposium; P.O. Box 410, St. Joseph, MI 49085.
10. Brooks, R.H. 1961. "Unsteady flow of Groundwater into Tile Drains". ASCE, IR-2.
11. Des Bouvrie, C. 1962. "Design Criteria for Drain Tile Filters". Thesis presented to Colorado State
University, Fort Collins, Colorado.
12. Donnan, W.W. 1946. "Mode Tests of a Tile Spacing Formula". Proc. Soil Sci. Soc. of Am. 11: 131-
136.
13. ----- 1959. "Drainage of Agricultural Lands Using Interceptor Lines". Proc. ASCE, J. Irr. and
Drainage, Mar. pp.13-23.
14. ----- 1960. "Drainage Problems in West Pakistan". WAPDA (un-published).
15. ----- 1961; "Field Measurement of Hydraulic Conductivity". ASCE: 1F-2.
16. Dumm, L.D., 1954. "Dials Spacing Formula". Agriculture Engineering, Vol.35, No.10.
17. ---- 1960. "Validity and Use of the Transient Flow Concept in Sub-Surface Drainage". ASAE;
Tennessee.
18. ---- 1963. "Designing A Sub-Surface Drainage System in an Irrigated Area Through Use of The
Transient Flow Concept". ASAE: Florida.
19. ---- 1964. "Transient Flow Concept in Sub-Surface Drainage: Its Validity and Use". Am. Soc. Agr.
Eng; Trans. 7(2): 142-146; 147-151.
20. Evans, N.A. "Design of Gravel Filter for Drain Systems", Transactions American Society of
Agricultural Engineers.
21. Ernest, L.F., 1956. "Calculation of the Steady Flow of Ground Water in Vertical Cross Sections".
Neth. J. Agric. Sci. 4: 126-131.
22. ---- 1962. "Groundwater stromingen in de varrzadidge zone en hum berekening bij aanwesigheid van
horizontale evenwijdige open leidingen". Versle. Landbouwk. oaderz. 67-15. 189 p.
23. F.A.O., 1972. "Drainage Materials". Irrigation and Drainage Paper 9.
24. ---- 1973. "Drainage Machinery". Irrigation and Drainage Paper 15.
25. ---- 1976. "Drainage Testing". Irrigation and Drainage Paper 28.
26. ---- 1980. "Drainage Design Factors". Irrigation and Drainage Paper 38.
142
27. Gulaci, Om. P 1970. "Control of Sediment Flow into Sub-Surface Drains", American Society of Civil
Engineers, IR-4.
28. Hammad, H.Y. 1962. "Depth and Spacing of Tile Drain System". ASCE Proc. 88 (IRI): 67-76.
29. ---- 1964. "Design of Tile Drainage for Falling Watertable" American Society of Civil Engineers. IR-2.
30. Hooghoudt, S.B. 1940. "Bijdragen tat de kennis van enige natu-urkundige grootheden van de grond".
No. 7. Verse. Landbouwk. Onderz. 46: 515-707.
31. International Commission on Irrigation and Drainage: "Design Practices of Covered Drains in an
Agricultural Land Drainage System" - a world wide survey (Draft Report) P-153.
32. International Institute for Land Reclamation and Improvement (ILRI). 1980. "Drainage Principles and
Application". Vol.I to IV.
33. Irrigation Research Institute, Punjab. 1972. "Performance of Various Shrouding Materials for Tile
Drainage". Technical Report No. 437.
34. ---- 1972. "Selected Bibliography On Sub-Surface Drainage". Tech. Rep. No. 440.
35 Isherwood, J.D. et al. 1958. "Shallow Groundwater and Tile Drainage in the Oxnard Plain". Am.
Geophys, Uni. Vol. No. 6.
36. ---- 1959. "Watertable Recession in Tile Drained Land". Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 64,
No. 7.
37. Kirkham D. 1948. "Theory of Seepage into Auger Holes". Soil Sci. Soc. of Am. Proc. Vol.13, pp.75-
82.
38. ---- 1949. "Flow of Water into Drain Tubes in Soil Overlying an Impervious Layer". A.G.V Trans.
Vol. 30. No. 3.
39. ---- 1958. "Seepage of steady rainfall through soils into drains". Trans, Am. Geophys. Union 39:892-
908.
40. ---- 1960. "An upper Limit for the Height of the Watertable in Drainage Design Formulae". 7th Int.
Congress, soil science, Madison I: 486-492.
41. ---- 1967. "Steady-State Theories for Drainage". American Society of Civil Engineers, IR-I.
42. List, E.J. 1965. "Steady Flow to Tile Drains Above an Impervious Layer: A theoretical study";
California Institute of Technology Pasadena, California.
43. Ligon, J.T. et al. 1964. "The Falling Watertable between Open Ditch Drains". Soil Science Vol. 97,
No. 2.
44. Luthin, J.N. et al. 1957. "Drainage of Agricultural Lands". American Society of Agronomy Monograph
No. 7.
45. ---- 1959. "The Falling Watertable in Tile Drainage". Trans. ASAE 2: 44-47, 51.
46. Leatherwood, F.N. 19. "Hydraulic Head Loss at the Interface between Uniform Sands of Different
Sizes". Transactions, A.G.U; 35(4), 588-594.
47. Lindenbergh, H.L.T. 1963. "A drainage Formula for Two Layered an Isotropic Soils". Annex VII,
ILRI, publication No. 11, The Netherlands.
48. Muskat, M. 1937. "The Flow of Homogeneous Fluids Through Porous Media". McGraw-Hill.
49. Moody, W.T. 1966. "Non Linear Differential Equation of Drain Spacing". American Society of Civil
Engg. IR-2.
50. Oosterbaan, IF, R.J. et al. 1975. "Principles of Tile and Ditch Drainage". Lecture notes at DRIP-
Pakistan.
51. Pillsbury, A.F. et al. 1965. "Tile Drainage Performance Coachella Valley". American Society of Civil
Engineers. IR-2.
143
52. ---- 1965. Tile drainage in the San Joaquin Valley of California, Department of Irrigation and Soil
Science UCLA.
53. ---- 1965. "Salinity of Tile Drainage Effluent". Water Resources Research. Vol.1, No. 4.
54. ---- 1976. "Observations on Tile Drainage Performance": American Society of Civil Engineers. IR-3.
55. Peterson, D.E. 1961. "Intercepting Drainage Wells in Artesian Aquifer". ASCE. Proc. 87; IRR. P-
414.
56. Qazi, A.R. 1961. "Design Criteria for Tile Drain Filters". Thesis presented to Colorado State
University, Fort Collens, Colorado.
57. Sutton, J.G. 1952. "Maintaining Drainage Systems". USDA Farmer's Bulletin No. 2047.
58. ---- 1960. "Installation of Drain Tile for Sub-surface Drainage". ASCE. IR-3.
59. Sci-Pan Chieng et al. 1978. "Drainage Rates and Watertable Depths". American Society of Civil
Engineers. IR-4.
60. Toksoz, S. et al. 1961. "Graphical Solution and Interpretation of a New Drain Spacing Formula". J.
Geophys. Res. 66(2): 609-516.
61. ---- 1971. "Steady-State Drainage of Layered Soils: I - (Theory) American Society of Civil Engineers,
IR-I.
62. ---- 1971. "Steady-State Drainage of Layered Soils: II - Nomographs: ASCE, IR-I.
63. Trout, T. et al. 1979. "Operational Irrigation Evaluation of Pakistan Watercourses Conveyance
Systems". Water Management Technical Report No.52-Colorado State University.
64. U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1951. "Report on Drainage Investigation in Irrigated Areas of
Imperial Valley California 1941 to 1951 (10 Years Summary).
65. ---- 1952. "Pam Drainage". Farmers Bulletin No.2046.
66. U.S.B.R. 1978. "Drainage Manual". U.S. Department of Interior.
67. U.S. Soil Conservation Service, 1973. "Drainage of Agricultural Land". Soil Conservation Service
U.S. Department of Agriculture.
68. U.S. American Society of Agronomy. 1974. "Drainage for Agriculture". Agronomy No.17. Madison,
Wisconson U.S.A.
69. Van Schilfeaarde, Jan. 1956. "Physical and Mathematical Theories of Tile and Ditch Drainage and
their Usefulness in Design". Research Bulletin No.436. IOWA State College.
70. --- 1963. "Design of Tile Drainage for Falling Watertable". ASCE Proc. 89 (IR-2): I-II; Proc. 90 (IR-
3): 71-73
71. ---- 1965. "Transient Design of Drainage Systems". ASCE, Proc. 91 (IR-3): 9-22.
72. ---- 1965. "Limitations of Dupuit Forchheimer Theory in Drainage". ASAE, Trans.
8 (4): 515-516, 519.
73. ---- 1970. "Theory of Flow to Drains". Advances in Hydro Sci. 6: 43-106.
74. Van Someren, C.L. et al. 1978. "Revised Design of Tile Drainage System in Khairpur East Pilot
Project". Drainage and Reclamation Institute of Pakistan (DRIP) Report # 7.
75. ---- 1979. "Design of Gravel Pack for Khairpur East Pilot Tile Drainage Project" DRIP Report No. 6.
76. Van Beers, W.F.J. 1958. "The Auger Hole Method" ILRI, Bulletin I.
77. ---- 1965. "Some Nomographs for the Calculation of Drain Spacings". ILRI, Bulletin No.8.
78. Wessling, J. 1964. "A Comparison of the Steady-state Drain Spacing Formulae of Hooghoudi and
Kirkham in Connection with Design Practice". ILRI, Technical Bulletin 34.
79. ---- 1964. "The Effect of Using Continually Sub-merged Drains on Drain Spacing". Journal of
Hydrology 2. pp.34-43.
144
80. Winger, R. L. 1965. "In Place Permeability Tests used for Sub-surface Drainage Investigation.
U.S.B.R.
81. ---- 1969. "Drainage Design for Managing Saline Pollutants". American Society of Agriculture
Engineers, Michigan.
82. ---- 1975. "Economical Drain Depth for Irrigated Areas". ASCE meeting Logan, Utah.
83. WAPDA Pakistan. 1984. "Mardan SCARP Sub-surface Drainage Design Analysis".
84. ---- 1964. "Regional Plan Northern Indus Plain". Tipton & Kalambagh Inc Project Consultants,
WAPDA.
85. ---- 1965. "Distribution losses". Lower Indus Project Report No.17.
86. ---- 1965. "Drainage" Lower Indus Project Report No.22.
87. ---- 1965. "Tile Drain Spacing". Lower Indus Project, Vol.22-4.
88. Zangar, C.N. 1953. "Theory and Problems of Water Percolation". Engg: Monograph No.8, USBR.
145

Full Manual Tile Drainage PDF

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Full Manual Tile Drainage PDF

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

TILE DRAINAGE MANUAL

PAKISTAN COUNCIL OF RESEARCH IN WATER RESOURCS

Draft Prepared by Atta-ur-Rehman Chaudhry

Reviewed by Dr. Abdul Majeed

Dr. Muhammad Akram

II. DRAINAGE INVESTIGATIONS

III. FLOW INTO DRAINS

IV. FIELD TESTS AND ANALYSIS

V. TILE DRAINAGE DESIGN

VI. CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE

VII. MONITORING AND EVALUATION OF

1.1 Influence of Topographic Factors on the Type of Drainage Needed 2

2.1 Textural Classes and Textural Class Modifying Terms 11

3.1 Value for the Hooghoudts Equivalent Depth d 35

5.1 Soil Moisture Content for Various Tensions 84

7.1 Performance Criteria 119

Purpose and Scope

Need for Drainage

Modes of Artificial Drainage

Selection of Drainage System

Table 1.1: Influences of Topographic Factors on Drainage Mode Needed

Topographic Implied Drainage Considerations

Plate 1: Severe Problem of Waterlogging in Indus Plain

No. Soil Factors Implied Drainage Considerations

Watertable Factors Implied drainage considerations

1. Watertable fluctuates a) Improved water management may preclude drain system.

2. Watertable fluctuates a) Better surface drainage is needed.

5. Seepage from outcrops or a) Interceptor tile drain or open drain.

6. Seepage from leaking a) Seal or cap well to prevent uncontrolled flow.

7. Ponded water at lower a) Proper leveling may eliminate pond areas.

8. Ponded water in fields. a) Proper grading for even distribution.

9. Drainage water of poor a) Drainage water must be disposed of so as to eliminate

Review of Existing Data

Sand (S) 85-100 0-15 0-10

Loamy sand (LS) 70-90 0-20 0-15

Sandy loam (SL) 43-85 0-50 0-20

Loam (L) 23-52 20-50 7-27

Silt loam (SiL) 0-50 50-100 0-27

Silty clay loam (SiCL) 0-20 40-73 27-48

Sandy clay (SC) 45-65 0-20 35-55

Silt (S) 0-20 80-100 0-12

Silty clay (SiC) 0-20 40-60 40-60

Clay (C) 0-44 0-40 40-100

2. Basic Textural Class Modifying Terms

0.05 to 0.10 300 to 140 Very fine sand (VFS)

1.00 to 2.00 18 to 10 Very coarse sand (VCS)

Table 2.2: Soil Structural Classes

1. 1 test per 100 ha in stratified soils; and

Incorrect: Presence of lake

Layout of Piezometric network for expected Groundwater conditions

watertable counter line

Figure 2.1: Examples of Incorrect and Correct Layout and Interpretation

Drainable Porosity and Specific Yield

HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY (cm/hr)

Table 2.5: Application Efficiency (Ea)

Study Kharif Rabi Annual

Main canal/branches 15% of head discharge; and

2. On Basis of infiltration Rate

Infiltration Rate Deep Percolation Infiltration Rate Deep Percolation

3. On Basis of Irrigation Methods, Water Application Efficiency and Soil Type

Water Application Average Deep

- poorly leveled and 60 45 30 40

Furrow - poorly graded and sized 55 40 30 40