0 views

Uploaded by PRATUL CHOUDHURY

This paper will help in comparing various Radial Collector Well

This paper will help in comparing various Radial Collector Well

© All Rights Reserved

- 20007KU4.pdf
- Chapter 5
- HYDROGEOLOGICAL AND GEOTECHNICAL ASSESSMENT OF SELECTED GULLY SITES IN GOMBI AREA, NORTHEASTERN NIGERIA. Yunis B. Valdon, Gabriel Ike Obiefuna and Emmanuel Ayegba
- MasterPlan 2013
- GWP_TEC_19_web
- Hydrogeology Terms Glossary
- Course 9 Hydrogeology Investigation
- ms42
- Californiawateratlas High
- 0132497468-Ch07_ISM.pdf
- geo-electrical-investigation-of-groundwater-resources-and-aquifer-characteristics-in-some-small-communities-in-the-gushiegu-and-karaga-districts-of-northern-ghana
- ESTIMATION OF GROUND WATER RECHARGE AT NCAM, ILORIN FOR IMPROVED IRRIGATION MANAGEMENT.
- Appendix B2 DEIR.pdf
- Geosyn 1884276 Environmental Protection Agency
- 07a50101 Water Resources Engineering i
- pump calculation
- ALEXANDRIS GEO-EXPO 2017 Sarajevo.pdf
- An Energy Approach to Studying Pipe Network Transients
- 30393
- twin lakes study tc eg el dh

You are on page 1of 13

net/publication/318702660

CITATIONS READS

0 519

3 authors:

Utah State University Utah State University

2 PUBLICATIONS 0 CITATIONS 86 PUBLICATIONS 1,046 CITATIONS

M. E. Banihabib

University of Tehran

128 PUBLICATIONS 899 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Sustainable conjunctive and Integrated optimization of urban, agricultural, and treated wastewater use. View project

All content following this page was uploaded by M. E. Banihabib on 26 July 2017.

2nd International conference on sustainable development, strategies and challenges

With a focus on Agriculture, Natural Resources, Environment and Tourism

23-25 Feb 2016, Tabriz , Iran

Comparison

S. Masoudiashtiani1, R. C. Peralta2, M. E. Banihabib3

1. PhD Candidate, Civil and Environmental Engineering Department, Utah State University, USA.,

s_masoudi1361@yahoo.com

2. Professor, Civil and Environmental Engineering Department, Utah State University, USA.,

peralta.rc@gmail.com

3. Associate Professor and Head, Department of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering, College of Aburaihan,

University of Tehran, Iran., banihabib@ut.ac.ir

Abstract

Groundwater is often a relatively reliable, clean, and safe source of water supply. However, in

some locations, including sites in arid and semiarid regions, the aquifer saturated thickness may

be insufficient for vertical tube wells to extract desired water rates. Radial Collector (RC) wells

are advantageous for obtaining sustained groundwater yield from thin aquifers located near

hydraulically connected surface water. An RC well abstracts groundwater with less drawdown

at the well casing than usually occurs at a traditional vertical well extracting the same pumping

rate. An RC well consists of a central caisson from which multiple horizontal lateral lines extend

horizontally. Available steady-state analytical solutions differ in assumptions, situational

suitability, and accuracy. Applying numerical simulation models (finite difference, finite

element, and analytic element), to compute RC head response to pumping also involves

simplifying assumptions that impact accuracy. The empirical equation of Patel et al. seems most

accurate of all empirical and analytical equations. Assume an RC well located 100-350 m from

a river, in a shallow unconfined aquifer having 8-15 m saturated thickness of unconsolidated

sand and gravel of hydraulic conductivity equal to or exceeding 500 m/d. Assume the RC well

has a 3-m caisson radius, 24 symmetrically placed laterals, lateral lengths of 35-100 meters,

and total steady pumping not exceeding 250 liters per second. The Patel Equation computes

caisson head about 4 % higher than heads computed by a numerical analytic element (AEM)

model. For the same range of situations, the McWhorter and Sunada (M&S) Equation computes

heads less than 2.6 % greater than the Patel Equation. Having a total error of less than seven

percent is good news of well designers experienced in using the Thiem Equation. The M&S

Equation is based upon the Thiem Equation, and comparably easy to use.

Key words: Radial Collector well, unconsolidated and unconfined aquifer, Ranney well.

1. Introduction

Radial Collector (RC) wells are often constructed to obtain filtered water from relatively

polluted river water. The soil between the riverbed and the screens of RC well collector laterals

acts as natural filter and can eliminate much of the pollutant present in the river water. This

helps users access a relatively clean water supply for sustainable development in small rural

areas.

RC wells are especially useful in aquifers that have small saturated thickness. An RC well’s

horizontal porous lateral lines run parallel to, rather than perpendicular to, aquifer saturated

1

2nd International conference on sustainable development, strategies and challenges

With a focus on Agriculture, Natural Resources, Environment and Tourism

23-25 Feb 2016, Tabriz , Iran

thickness. The drawdown at an RC well is less than that at a vertical well pumping the same

rate. Thus, RC wells can often target relatively thin water-bearing strata or fracture zones better

than vertical tube wells (Ball et. al. 1992). RC wells are particularly well suited for obtaining

sustained groundwater yield in some situations.

Of the valuable literature-reported steady-state empirical or analytical equations for RC wells,

all have some limitations for field use (Petrovic 1956; Kordas 1960). Milojevic (1963b) used

image theory and superposition to present an equation for one RC well in a homogeneous and

isotropic artesian aquifer of limited thickness and unconfined side expansion. He assumed

uniform drawdown along the laterals and proximity to a river or surface water body of constant

head:

𝑡 0.10 𝐷 0.15 𝑇

𝑄 = 𝑘 𝑇(𝐻 − ℎ0 ) ( ) ( ) [4.13𝑚0.1415 − 1.22 ( )]

𝐿 𝐿 𝐿

2

𝑇 3

[0.914+0.0183𝑚−0.348( ) ]

𝐿

1

×( )

2𝑏

𝑙𝑜𝑔10 𝐿

Where

Q - total discharge in m3/d;

H - thickness of aquifer in m;

h0 - head in the RC well in m;

T - water bearing layer thickness in m;

k - filtration coefficient of aquifer in m/d;

t - height of drain pipe (lateral) above the impervious stratum in m;

L - length of each lateral in m;

m - number of laterals;

b - well distance from the river bank in m;

D - diameter of drain pipe in m;

with such constraints:

𝑇

0.2 ≤ ≤2

𝐿

4 ≤ 𝑚 ≤ 12

𝑏

1.5 ≤ ≤8

𝐿

𝑡 𝑇

0.06 ≤ ≤

𝐿 2

𝐷

0.0172 ≤ ≤ 0.0343

𝐿

McWhorter and Sunada (1977) adapted the Thiem Eq commonly used for pumping vertical

wells under steady-state conditions. The McWhorter and Sunada (M&S) equation assumes an

approximate effective radius of the RC well as a function of the uniform lateral length L.

2

2nd International conference on sustainable development, strategies and challenges

With a focus on Agriculture, Natural Resources, Environment and Tourism

23-25 Feb 2016, Tabriz , Iran

𝑟𝑤 = 0.61 × 𝐿

𝜋 𝑘 (𝐻 2 − ℎ𝑤

2

)

𝑄=

𝑅

𝑙𝑛(𝑟 )

𝑤

2 𝜋 𝑇 (𝐻 − ℎ𝑤 )

𝑄=

𝑅

𝑙𝑛(𝑟 )

𝑤

Where

Q - total discharge in m3/d;

k - hydraulic conductivity of aquifer in m/d;

H - saturated thickness of aquifer in m;

hw - depth of water in RC well over base of aquifer in m;

R - radius of influence in m;

rw - effective radius of the well in m;

L - length of each lateral in m;

Patel et. al. (2010) contrasted results from several methods, including finite difference method

(FDM) in Modflow, analytic element method (AEM), and some important empirical equations.

They used AEM modeling tools to simulate many scenarios within reasonable ranges and tested

their developed equation for more than 400 different data sets in a thin alluvial riverbed aquifer.

The AEM-Based empirical equation is (Patel et. al., 2010):

−0.745

0.1626 0.149 −0.4014𝜃 0.8346 (𝐻1.72

𝑅

𝑄 = 2.96𝐶 𝐿 𝑒 𝑘 − ℎ1.72

𝑤 )

1.0613

× [𝑙𝑛 ( )]

𝐿 + 𝑟𝑤

Where

Q - total discharge from RC well in m3/h;

L - length of each lateral in m;

θ - angle between adjacent two laterals in radian;

k - hydraulic conductivity of aquifer in m/h;

3

2nd International conference on sustainable development, strategies and challenges

With a focus on Agriculture, Natural Resources, Environment and Tourism

23-25 Feb 2016, Tabriz , Iran

hw - head in central collector well caisson in m;

R - radius of influence in m;

rw - radius of caisson in m;

C - specific conductance in m/h;

The equation gives satisfactory results for numbers of symmetrical laterals ranging from 12 to

24. The difference between the AEM-Based empirical equation and AEM simulation is less

than 4 percent. They used table 1 data for the case study located in a thin alluvial riverbed

aquifer of the Mahi River of Gujarat in western India.

Parameter Unit Value

Number of laterals ----- 16

Length of lateral M 35

Drawdown M 4

Radius of influence

M 250

(or distance from river)

Radius of caisson M 3

Hydraulic conductivity m/h 25

Thickness of saturated aquifer M 8

Diameter of drain pipe M 0.3

Specific conductance m/h 4

For comparable situations, table 2 shows the differences in discharges computed by their

equation and other empirical equations (Patel et. al., 2010).

Method Discharge (m3/h)

McWhorter & Sunada, Unconfined (1977) 1532

Petrovic (1956) 5359

Kordas (1960) 3143

Milojevic (1963) 1372

Patel et. al. (2010) 1491

We use table 2 data to estimate the percentage difference between other equations and the Patel

et al. Eq (Patel et. al., 2010), which we assume is most accurate.

𝑃𝑒𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝐷𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒

(𝑃𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑙 𝑒𝑡. 𝑎𝑙. 𝑒𝑞𝑢𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑢𝑙𝑡 − 𝑒𝑚𝑝𝑖𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 𝑒𝑞𝑢𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑢𝑙𝑡)

= × 100

𝑃𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑙 𝑒𝑡. 𝑎𝑙. 𝑒𝑞𝑢𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑢𝑙𝑡

4

2nd International conference on sustainable development, strategies and challenges

With a focus on Agriculture, Natural Resources, Environment and Tourism

23-25 Feb 2016, Tabriz , Iran

Table 3 summarizes the percentage differences. A negative percentage means that the results

of an empirical equation are higher than the AEM-Based empirical equation (Patel et. al., 2010).

Table 3: Percentage of differences between other empirical equations and the Patel Eq.

Method Difference (%)

Petrovic (1956) -259.42

Kordas (1960) -110.8

Milojevic (1963) 8

McWhorter & Sunada - unconfined (1977) -2.75

In table 3, the M&S Equation provides results most like those of the Patel et al Eq. Using table

4 data ranges, we contrast results from using the M&S Equation and the Patel et al Eq.

Parameter Unit Value

Number of laterals ----- 12,14,16,18,20,22,24

Length of each lateral m 10,20,30,35,40,50,60,70,80,90,100

Total discharge m3/h (m3/d or lit/s) 900 (21600 or 250) and 1800 (43200 or 500)

Radius of influence

m 50,100,150,200,250,300,350

(or distance from river)

Radius of caisson m 3

Hydraulic conductivity m/h (or m/d) 18.75 (or 450) and 25 (or 600)

Thickness of saturated aquifer m 8

Diameter of drain pipe m 0.3

Specific conductance m/h 4

Table 4 data represents reasonable ranges based on previous work by Bakker et. al. (2005),

Patel et. al. (2010), Haitjema et. al. (2010), Moore et. al. (2012) and water management,

construction, and drilling companies in the USA. For example, the diameter of laterals (drain

pipes) of 0.3 meter (12 inch) is common because larger diameters (such as 0.5 and 0.6 meters

(20 and 24 inches) are more prone to screen collapse and require more effort and costly

equipment to install. We select the number of laterals in line with the constraint of the AEM-

Based empirical equation. The 3-meter caisson radius is within the 2.5-4.5 range tested by Patel

et. al. (2010) used the range of 2.5 to 4.5 meter. Within that range, Patel et. al. results changed

less than 3 percent.

In this study, we evaluated the accuracy of McWhorter and Sunada’s empirical equation with

considering the AEM-Based empirical equation (Patel et. al., 2010) as an accurate solution. The

height of the laterals from the bottom of an unconfined aquifer does not exist in the AEM-Based

empirical equation and McWhorter and Sunada’s empirical equation but Patel et. al. (2010)

used 1 meter for their comparisons among empirical equations with the saturated thickness of

5

2nd International conference on sustainable development, strategies and challenges

With a focus on Agriculture, Natural Resources, Environment and Tourism

23-25 Feb 2016, Tabriz , Iran

8 meter for the aquifer. Usually, we need to set the laterals near to the bottom of the aquifer to

gain more water for RC wells. The specific conductance depends on the entrance resistance and

the head loss owing to the vertical flow. We applied the diameter of 0.3 meter for the laterals

and then used 4 meter per day for the specific conductance. An unconfined shallow aquifer with

high hydraulic conductivity that includes gravels and coarse sands has the upper range of

hydraulic conductivity between 100 to 1000 meter per day. Therefore, our study is valid for the

hydraulic conductivity of 500 meter per day or more.

We applied McWhorter and Sunada’s equations (confined and unconfined equations) for our

evaluation. Furthermore, we looked at the worst scenarios among our estimations. The worst

scenarios present the highest differences without involving the number of laterals in table 5.

Hydraulic Total

Length of each Distance from Difference of

conductivity discharge Equation Type

lateral (m) Stream (m) RC head (%)

(m/d) (lit/s)

McWhorter &

Sunada - 35 to 100 50 to 350 < -4.80

Unconfined

250

McWhorter &

Sunada - 35 to 100 100 to 350 < -20.4

Confined

450

McWhorter &

Sunada - 35 to 100 50 to 350 > 22

Unconfined

500

McWhorter &

Sunada - 35 to 100 50 to 350 > -16.6

Confined

Sunada - 50 to 350

Unconfined 80 to 100 < 3.45

250

McWhorter &

Sunada - 20 to 100 50 to 350 < -25.85

Confined

600

McWhorter &

Sunada - 35 to 100 50 to 350 < 38.53

Unconfined

500

McWhorter &

Sunada - 10 to 100 50 to 350 > -10

Confined

The lowest differences (less than -4.80, -6.90 and 3.45 percent) occur in McWhorter and

Sunada’s unconfined empirical equation with the reasonable total discharge (250 liters per

second), the longest range of the length (35 to 100 meter) and the entire range of the distance

6

2nd International conference on sustainable development, strategies and challenges

With a focus on Agriculture, Natural Resources, Environment and Tourism

23-25 Feb 2016, Tabriz , Iran

(50 to 350 meter). In general, the best estimations take place in McWhorter and Sunada’s

unconfined empirical equation with the reasonable discharge in table 5.

We developed our estimations based on the equation type, the number of laterals, the length of

each lateral, the distance from the center of RC well to a stream to find the range of the

differences for the estimation of RC well head in table 6.

Hydraulic Total Number Length of Distance Difference

conductivity discharge Equation Type of each lateral from Stream of RC heads

(m/d) (lit/s) laterals (m) (m) (%)

McWhorter & Sunada

12 80 to 100 100 to 350 < 1.44

- Unconfined

24 35 to 100 50 to 350 < 4.75

250

20 to 30 50 to 350 < -26.20

McWhorter & Sunada

24 35 to 50 50 to 350 < -7.90

- Confined

60 to 80 200 to 350 < -3.13

450

40 to 50 50 to 150 < 15.13

McWhorter & Sunada

12 60 to 70 50 to 250 < 23.56

- Unconfined

80 to 100 100 to 300 < 19.44

500

24

- Confined 70 to 100 250 to 350 < -23.30

35 to 40 100 to 350 < -1.88

McWhorter &

24 50 to 60 150 to 300 < -0.71

Sunada - Unconfined

50 to 70 100 to 150 < 1.72

250 70 to 100 150 to 350 < 1.71

20 to 30 50 to 350 < -15.20

McWhorter & Sunada 35 to 70 100 to 350 < -7.50

24

- Confined 80 to 100 200 to 350 < -1.60

80 to 100 100 to 150 < 3.30

600

24 20 to 30 50 to 100 < -4.00

McWhorter & Sunada

24 35 to 50 50 to 250 < 14.60

- Unconfined

12 60 to 80 150 to 300 < -5.10

500

24

- Confined 60 to 90 200 to 350 < -16.73

The results of McWhorter and Sunada’s unconfined empirical equation show less than 1.88

percent of the difference (overestimation or underestimation) with 24 laterals, the length of

laterals measuring between 35 to 100 meter, the distance from a stream being between 100 to

350 meter in table 6 and figures 1, 2 and 3. It means that designers need to install 24 laterals

symmetrically with considering the length and the distance in table 6.

7

2nd International conference on sustainable development, strategies and challenges

With a focus on Agriculture, Natural Resources, Environment and Tourism

23-25 Feb 2016, Tabriz , Iran

0

12 14 16 18 20 22 24

-1

-2

-1.87

Difference (%)

-3

100 m

-4 150 m

-5 200 m

250 m

-6

300 m

-7 350 m

-8

Number of Laterals

Figure 1: Percentage of Difference for RC heads in various distances from a stream, Length of

each lateral of 35 m, Total discharge of 21600 m3/d (250 lit/s).

2

0

12 14 16 18 20 22 24

-1 -0.71

Difference (%)

-2 100 m

-3 150 m

200 m

-4

250 m

-5 300 m

-6 350 m

-7

-8 Number of Laterals

Figure 2: Percentage of Difference for RC heads in various number of laterals and distances,

Length of each lateral of 50 m, Total discharge of 21600 m3/d (250 lit/s).

8

2nd International conference on sustainable development, strategies and challenges

With a focus on Agriculture, Natural Resources, Environment and Tourism

23-25 Feb 2016, Tabriz , Iran

2

1.00

1

0

12 14 16 18 20 22 24

-1

Difference (%)

-2

-3 100 m

150 m

-4

200 m

-5

250 m

-6 300 m

-7 350 m

-8

Number of Laterals

Figure 3: Percentage of Difference for RC heads in various number of laterals and distances,

Length of each lateral of 60 m, Total discharge of 21600 m3/d (250 lit/s).

Then we extended the range of the data for properties of the aquifers. We used the hydraulic

conductivities of 300, 400, 500, 600 and 700 meter per day, and applied the saturated thickness

of 15 meter. We respected the ranges of the length, the distance, the reasonable total discharge

of 250 liters per second and 24 laterals with the lowest differences in table 6. The results show

the highest difference is about 2.6 percent (overestimation) with the hydraulic conductivity of

700 meter per day and the saturated thickness of 8 meter in figure 4. With the increase of the

hydraulic conductivity and the saturated thickness, the difference going to be less. In addition,

we have satisfactory estimations for hydraulic conductivities of 300 and 400 meter per day with

the saturated thickness of 15 meter in figure 5. However, Patel et. al. developed their equation

for a thin unconsolidated aquifer with the high hydraulic conductivity of 600 meter per day. We

cannot apply Patel et. al. AEM-Based empirical equation and our comparison for the low

hydraulic conductivities or high saturated thicknesses.

In general, our comparison shows the difference between McWhorter and Sunada’s empirical

equation and Patel et. al. AEM-Based empirical equation going to be less than 2.6 percent.

Furthermore, the difference between McWhorter and Sunada’s empirical equation and AEM

simulation can be less than seven percent at most according to Patel et. al. study for their

equation.

9

2nd International conference on sustainable development, strategies and challenges

With a focus on Agriculture, Natural Resources, Environment and Tourism

23-25 Feb 2016, Tabriz , Iran

L = 35m, R = 100m

50

L = 50m, R = 100m

45 L = 60m, R = 100m

40 L = 35m, R = 200m

35 L = 50m, R = 200m

Difference (%)

30 L = 60m, R = 200m

25 L = 35m, R = 300m

20 L = 50m, R = 300m

15 L = 60m, R = 300m

10

5

0

-5 300 400 500 600 700 -2.63

Hydraulic conductivity (m/d)

Figure 4: Percentage of Difference for RC heads in 24 laterals, various distances and lengths of

each lateral, Total discharge of 21600 m3/d (250 lit/s), the saturated thickness of 8 meter and

various hydraulic conductivities.

10

2nd International conference on sustainable development, strategies and challenges

With a focus on Agriculture, Natural Resources, Environment and Tourism

23-25 Feb 2016, Tabriz , Iran

L = 35m, R = 100m

50

L = 50m, R = 100m

45 L = 60m, R = 100m

40 L = 35m, R = 200m

35 L = 50m, R = 200m

30 L = 60m, R = 200m

Difference %

25 L = 35m, R = 300m

L = 50m, R = 300m

20

L = 60m, R = 300m

15

10

5

0

-5 300 400 500 -2.17 600 700

Hydraulic conductivity (m/d)

Figure 5: Percentage of Difference for RC heads in 24 laterals, various distances and lengths of

each lateral, Total discharge of 21600 m3/d (250 lit/s), the saturated thickness of 15 meter and

various hydraulic conductivities.

4. Conclusions

RC wells are especially suited to obtaining water from thin aquifers or saturated fractured strata.

RC wells cause much less drawdown than vertical tube wells pumping at the same rate. RC

wells can provide sustained groundwater yield or necessary seasonal yield in locations where

tube wells cannot. Because applying numerical modeling methods, such as FDM, FEM and

AEM, is somewhat laborious, many designers prefer to use analytical or empirical equations

instead. The AEM-based empirical equation of Patel et. al. is somewhat of a hybrid. We

compare collector-well central heads predicted using the equations of Patel et al. and

McWhorter and Sunada (M & S). The M&S Equation is an RC well-adaptation of the Thiem

Equation. For a 24-lateral RC well in an unconfined aquifer located 100-350 meters from a

stream, the M&S Equation computes head within about 2.6 % of that computed by Patel et al.

Eq. for these tested situations: hydraulic conductivity of 500-700 m/d (we did not test higher

values); reasonable total discharge of 250 liters per second or less; lateral length of 35-100

meters. For that range, the M&S Equation computes head within seven percent of that computed

by Analytical Element Method numerical simulation model.

In essence, this research demonstrates reasonable agreement in simulation ability between the

evaluated models for high hydraulic conductivity situations. Even the simple M&S equation

can help provide RC well designs for sustainably obtaining relatively clean water from thin or

thick aquifers in arid and semi-arid regions.

11

2nd International conference on sustainable development, strategies and challenges

With a focus on Agriculture, Natural Resources, Environment and Tourism

23-25 Feb 2016, Tabriz , Iran

5. Acknowledgment

The authors thank Andy Smith (Layne Company, USA), for his help regarding RC well

construction.

References

[1] Bakker M, Kelson VA, Luther KH. Multilayer analytic element modeling of radial collector wells.

Ground Water; 43(6): 926-934, 2005.

[2] Ball DF, Herbert R. The Use and Performance of Collector Wells within the Regolith Aquifer of Sri

Lanka. Ground Water 30(5): 683-689, 1992.

[3] Haitjema H, Kuzin S, Kelson V, Abrams D. Modeling Flow into Horizontal Wells in a Dupuit-

Forchheimer Model. Ground Water; 48(6): 878-883, 2010.

[4] Huisman L. Groundwater Recovery, The Macmillan Press LTD, London and Basingstoke, 1972.

[5] McWhorter DB, Sunada, DK. Groundwater hydrology and hydraulics, Water Resources Publication,

LLC. Englewood, Colorado, 1977.

[6] Milojevic M. Radial collector wells adjacent to the riverbank. Journal of the Hydraulics Division,

Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers; 89(6): 133-151, 1963b.

[7] Moore R, Kelson V, Wittman J, Rash V. A Modeling Framework for the Design of Collector Wells.

Ground Water; 50(3): 355-366, 2012.

[8] Patel HM, Eldho TI, Rastogi AK. Simulation of Radial Collector Well in Shallow Alluvial Riverbed

Aquifer Using Analytic Element Method. Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering, ASCE;

136(2): 107-119, 2010.

[9] USGS. Basic Ground-Water Hydrology, Water-Supply Paper 2220 (eighth Printing). Denver,

Colorado, 1998.

12

- 20007KU4.pdfUploaded byjackelinepg
- Chapter 5Uploaded byjonaspd
- HYDROGEOLOGICAL AND GEOTECHNICAL ASSESSMENT OF SELECTED GULLY SITES IN GOMBI AREA, NORTHEASTERN NIGERIA. Yunis B. Valdon, Gabriel Ike Obiefuna and Emmanuel AyegbaUploaded bywilolud9822
- MasterPlan 2013Uploaded byGaurav Tanwer
- GWP_TEC_19_webUploaded bynurhayeti
- Hydrogeology Terms GlossaryUploaded byFirdha Firdaus
- Course 9 Hydrogeology InvestigationUploaded byshalaho
- ms42Uploaded byAhi Sriya Evani
- Californiawateratlas HighUploaded byJose
- 0132497468-Ch07_ISM.pdfUploaded byAndrés Castillo
- geo-electrical-investigation-of-groundwater-resources-and-aquifer-characteristics-in-some-small-communities-in-the-gushiegu-and-karaga-districts-of-northern-ghanaUploaded byIJSTR Research Publication
- ESTIMATION OF GROUND WATER RECHARGE AT NCAM, ILORIN FOR IMPROVED IRRIGATION MANAGEMENT.Uploaded byFrancis Abulude
- Appendix B2 DEIR.pdfUploaded byL. A. Paterson
- Geosyn 1884276 Environmental Protection AgencyUploaded byLuis Adrian
- 07a50101 Water Resources Engineering iUploaded bywebs6000
- pump calculationUploaded byankit
- ALEXANDRIS GEO-EXPO 2017 Sarajevo.pdfUploaded byargyris
- An Energy Approach to Studying Pipe Network TransientsUploaded byHidan WL
- 30393Uploaded byDipendraGautam
- twin lakes study tc eg el dhUploaded byapi-223113705
- A study on groundwater variability in Raozan AreaUploaded byhillol imran
- nhess-6-195-2006Uploaded byivolucic
- GWM Briefing 11 Utilization of Non-Renewable GroundwaterUploaded byMonica Urbieta
- Aquatherm Losses.pdfUploaded byAslam
- apes hydrosphere outlineUploaded byapi-344957036
- WSS GuidanceUploaded byWelvin Parungao
- Listening Script.docUploaded byGiana Jaladri
- mind mapping [Autosaved].pptxUploaded byIndri Fitriana
- Fluid MechanicsUploaded bySiddharth Garg
- Ground water Management in PakistanUploaded byRudolf Rosenthal

- Manual on Artificial Recharge of Ground Water - CGWB, GOIUploaded byVishal Duggal
- 677510WP0v30Bo0ionMaintenanceManual.pdfUploaded byhout rothana
- Horizontal WellUploaded byPRATUL CHOUDHURY
- Collector Wells Feasibility StudiesUploaded byPRATUL CHOUDHURY
- Water ConservationUploaded byPRATUL CHOUDHURY
- FLOW ANALYSIS THROUGH COLLECTOR WELLUploaded byPRATUL CHOUDHURY

- 3 Highway Location Process (2A)Uploaded byqadeer
- analisa kalsimetriUploaded byAdinda Anggrianti
- Multi Element Association Analysis of Stream Sediment GeochemistryUploaded byKarinto Suárez
- The Godzilla EffectUploaded byIskrimir
- 2006 Bridge KirkcaldieUploaded byAnil Singh
- Articulos Yac de GasUploaded byChristian Narváez Barajas
- 2 Earthquakes Structures EnUploaded byashishdhaloch1995
- Failure of Civil StructuresUploaded byRaunaq Mohamed
- Wellsite GeologyUploaded byabuobida
- Science-Readings-1.pdfUploaded byTeddy Lee
- SPEUploaded byrenato
- Soils Testing StanUploaded byVasa
- GEO L10 Physio India Part 2 0.2Uploaded byshashankniec
- Singapore GeologyUploaded byelmady
- Shale-GasUploaded bykrishnaswamy9
- 721260_jurnal geolistrikUploaded bysidhartapra
- Articulo Well ControlUploaded byLeoporno63
- metamineralsUploaded byapi-19643403
- Michael E. Mann curriculum vitae with funding / grant informationUploaded byacolpo
- geography.pdfUploaded byDibyasingh Majhi
- Geological History of Earth (Jaheim Hackett 2012)Uploaded byFabian Martinez
- SPEBreakfast RPS Jan14 Geomodeling.compressedUploaded byaida
- Mexican Society of Geotechnical EngineeringUploaded byluismpg
- earthquake a disasterUploaded byitismeavd
- Petrel FundamentalsUploaded bygoomey
- LGGM_Aug18.pdfUploaded byzoar
- Earthquake Dameges to Building and Their Retrofitting and ReUploaded byAnkush Pendhari Jain
- Seismic Analysis and Design of StructuresUploaded byPavan Patchigolla
- Australian Standard for Geotechnical Design of Pile FoundationUploaded byMuhammad Asad Warraich
- BATL040_ PataviumUploaded byJaneyJRee