Transient-Flow Concept in Subsurface Drainage:
Its Validity and Use
I N the original development of the
basic transient-flow theory ( 2 ) * for
the case where drains are placed above
a barrier, the water table between
drains was assumed to be a flat, hori­
zontal surface at the start of each drain­
age cycle. This was done as a conces­
sion to the difficulties involved in as­
suming a curved water surface. The
flat water surface was not, however, a
correct representation of the initial con­
dition. It was believed, therefore, that
if the actual shape could be more prop­
erly represented by a suitable equation
and the mathematical treatment could
be made to conform to this shape, the
spacing determinations could be im­
proved. A study of water-table shapes
produced by constructed parallel drains
indicated that a fourth-degree para­
bola gave a relatively good reproduc­
tion of the initial shape, as well as of
that maintained throughout the entire
drawdown period.
A new drain-spacing equation using
the fourth-degree parabola to represent
the initial water-table conditions for
the case when the drains are above the
barrier, was developed by W. N. Tapp
and W. T. Moody, engineers of the Bu­
reau of Reclamation. The mathematical
development is as follows:
The differential equation relating the
water-table height, diffusivity, time,
and space coordinates is
a procedures. All physical data for areas
The initial and boundary conditions to
be satisfied for the particular problem
are:
Initial conditions (t = 0, 0 ^ X ^ L):
Uw-,0
(Ux - 3L2x2 + 4Lx 3 - 2x 4 )
U curves of Figs. 1 and 2 to compute
Equation [ 1 ] describes the fourth-
degree parabola which passes through
the point x = 0 , y=0; x = L , t/=0 and
has a maximum ordinate y~yc,o at x —
L/2.
Boundary conditions (t — 0, x = 0
or L ) :
y0,t = ° a n d !fL,t = 0.
Following is a solution of equation
Presented as Paper No. 60-717 at the Winter
Meeting of the American Society of Agricultural
Engineers at Memphis, Tenn., December 1960,
on a program arranged by the Soil and Water
Division.
The author—LEE D. DUMM—is engineer,
division of drainage and groundwater engineer­
ing, office of chief engineer, Bureau of Reclama­
tion, U.S. Department of the Interior.
* Numbers in parentheses refer to the ap­
pended references.
142
Lee D. Dumm
[ 1 ] satisfying these initial and bound­
ary conditions
00
( 2 r a + l ) 2 7T2 -
7T5 m=o
( 2 r a + l ) 7TX
sin
L
where
a — diffusivity of a q u i f e r (a
kd/S)
k = permeability
d = saturated depth below drain
S = specific yield (percent by vol-
umq)
L = drain spacing
y®,t ~ w a t e r - t a b l e height above
drain
t = time
x = distance from centerline of drain
c = subscript denoting point where
x = L/2
m,n = indexes of summation
exp x = e*
Substituting x = L / 2 , the following
expression is obtained for calculating y
at the midpoint between drains:
n in2
i/ , 192 °° - 77^
Jki = ±~ ^ (-1)"2~~— 5
yc,o 3
7T n = 1,3,5 n
As with the original treatment using
a flat initial water table, an approxi­
mate solution is obtained immediately
from equation [ 3 ] by discarding all but
the first term in the series. Also the
same limitations of the original treat­
ment apply to this solution; namely,
the spacing calculations are valid so
long as yCy0 is small compared to d.
Fig. 1 shows graphically the relation
between the dimensionless parameters
y/y0 and kDt/SL2.
From a practical standpoint, the spac­
ing obtained by use of the parabolic
shape is not greatly different from that
obtained through use of the flat water-
table shape. However, since a flat
water table does not occur after the
installation of parallel drains, it is be­
lieved the use of the parabolic shape is
a worthwhile advancement in the ap­
plication of the theory.
No change has been made in the orig­
inal development for the case where
the drain is placed on the barrier, since
a parabolic initial shape had already
been assumed. The solution of this
8 ( 2 m + l ) 2 TT2at\
-expj -
(2m+l)6 U
[2]
case is represented in graphical form
= by the curve in Fig. 2.
VALIDITY OF THEORY
As a result of the author's appeal in
the original presentation for field checks
of the theory, research workers in Aus­
tralia and Canada sent data on draw­
down, d i s c h a r g e , permeability, etc.,
from constructed drains. Similar data
were received from a drain system on
the Yuma Mesa Irrigation and Drainage
District, a unit of the Bureau of Rec­
lamation's Gila Project in Arizona. The
Canadian and Australian data were in
considerable detail and permitted un­
usually good checks on the application
of the transient-flow theory to field con­
ditions. The Yuma Mesa data, while not
7T2n2at
-exp [3]
in research detail, did, however, pro­
vide checks under less exacting but
more nearly normal field investigational
already under drainage, such as per­
meability, specific yield, depth to bar­
rier, constructed drain spacing, drain
discharge, and water-table elevations
at various times were available or could
be computed from other data. Thus it
[1] was possible to use these data with the
drain spacing and water-table fluctua­
tion for specific time intervals. These
could then be compared with measured
values.
Talsma and Haskew ( 7 ) , the Aus­
tralian workers, gave the results of their
checks of various theories and spacing
formulas against measured values, They
also furnished the author a copy of
their detailed records (8) of tile drain
design and performance. In further
analyzing these data, the author, where
possible, assembled them into a form
representing the physical conditions
which caused the water-table fluctua­
tion during specific time periods. That
is, the permeability and specific yield
TRANSACTIONS OF THE ASAE • 1964
 O.0I 10. aol
O.I 10
or \.o 10.

N
\ 0.8
\
NM
ml
O.b
^o
Roo+ Z e n *

H
M O.b

T r
6four>J
^^JW_Zon«_^
Surt*C

=-. rtL
K^
*•* "T ^
0.4 ~A 3 t H 0.4
>""^
\J M
tf^
v
\6«rri«.r
\ \ \ \
^ A * l
r \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \A s i »• 1
\
0.3 L 0-3
^\
— t- 1 \ i (ft.)
y o « Midpoint «.+. h«i«n+ art baqinnina of dr»iMU* period ((♦.> \ Z> •' •> « » %«d
at d » Dist«ne« from drain to barrier (*t.) k = P«rmtaViK+y m rlow xon« ( ( f / d « y )
S ' S p t c i f i c yi«ld in xon* of w i {li4C+uaVion C*^ »y volume)
0-1
D> Av«rAac + low depth * d + * , / i
»y volume) \ t »Dr*'\nou^ r\me period (day*) , , . ,,
t « Drainout t me p«riod CdoyO ; L
| &pac nq ( f t . )
\ * Dr« Sp«onq (,ff)
1 1 I 1 II! 1 1 I l1 0 J u 1 Mill 1. ll
FIG. 1 Curve indicating relationship between y/y 0 and kDt/SL 2
FIG. 2 Curve indicating relationship between Z / H and kHt/SL 2
at midpoint between drains (where drain is above barrier). at midpoint between drains (where drain is on barrier).
values were computed for the specific ured values of k, H, t, S, and L were same method as previously presented
time periods and p r e v a i l i n g water- used, giving a computed Z of 2.51 ft, by the author ( 2 ) ; i.e., D = d + t/ 0 /2.
table conditions. compared to a measured value of 2.50 Convergence of flow at the drain was
Where such comparisons were pos­ ft. accounted for by adjustment of this
sible, very close agreement was ob­ Another type of c o m p a r i s o n was average flow d e p t h by the use of
tained between measured spacing and made by starting the water table at the Hooghoudt's corrections, as suggested
water-table response and those pre­ measured height on October 3 and using by Maasland ( 4 ) . With these values
dicted through use of Figs. 1 and 2. It the corresponding values of permeabil­ and curve of Fig. 1, the drain spacing
should be pointed out that only through ity, specific yield, and constructed spac­ and water-table heights at the end of
the use of the transient-flow theory can ing to predict the successive water- various time periods, were computed
the water-table fluctuation induced by table fluctuations at the times at which and compared with measured values.
drains be computed or checked. Two the water table was measured. The For the water-table conditions during
examples of the computations and the computations and comparisons are as the period August 7 to 9, the permea­
way the results checked are given. follows: bility was 4.1 ft per day, the specific
Example 1 This example is based on
H Z
data from Basin No. 3 in the Canadian Date, t, k, s, kHt
Z/H
Oct. days ft/day percent Measured Computed SL 2 Measured Computed
work and represents the case where the feet feet feet feet
drain is on the b a r r i e r layer. The 3 2.80
weighted-average permeability during 4 1 1.39 23.2 2.80 0.0187 0.925 2.70 2.59
specific time periods was derived from 5 1 1.34 23.8 2.70 2.59 0.0162 0.932 2.50 2.42
8 3 1.15 6.5 2.50 2.42 0.1420 0.610 1.50 1.48
point-permeability values measured at 9 1 0.95 4.0 1.50 1.48 0.0390 0.853 1.30 1.26
15 6 0.78 2.5 1.30 1.26 0.2620 0.458 0.60 0.58
various heights above the barrier by
the piezometer method. The specific All comparisons of spacing and wa­ yield 5.8 percent, the average corrected
yield during each time period was de­ ter-table heights for the case covered depth of flow 5.57 ft, and the water-
rived from the measured water-table by this example did not, of course, table height on August 7 (y0) 1.53 ft
height and shape, and discharge rate at check as closely as these. Most com­ above the drain and on August 9 (y)
the beginning and end of each time parisons, however, gave good correla­ 1.33 ft. The constructed drain spacing
period. With these values and the re­ tions as shown by Table 1 and Figs. 3 was 165 ft and the time period between
lations of Fig. 2, the drain spacing was and 4. water-table measurements was 1.98
computed and compared with the in­ Example 2 This example is based on days.
stalled spacing, as follows: the Australian work and represents the To compute the spacing responsible
During the period October 4 to 5, case where the drain is above the bar­ for the drawdown during this time pe­
the applicable weighted-average per­ rier. Data from lateral 1235E during riod, measured values of D, y0, y, k, t,
meability and specific yield values were the period August 7 to 16 are used. and S were used. Therefore, when y/
determined to b e 1.343 ft per day and Auger-hole permeability measurements
yQ = 1.33/1.53 = 0.87 from curve,
23.8 percent, respectively. The corre­ had been made over a period of sev­
sponding water-table height above the eral years when the water table was at Fig. 1, the value of kDt/SL* = 0.0277.
drain was ( H ) 2.70 ft on October 4 Solving for L,
and (Z) 2.50 ft on October 5. The kDt = (4.1) (5.57) (1.98) = 28,100
1J =
constructed drain spacing was 30 ft. (0.0277) S (0.0277) (0.058)
To compute the spacing responsible
for the drawdown during this time pe­ varying heights. The permeability val­ and L = 167 ft, compared with con­
riod, measured values of H, Z, k, t, ues for this example were derived from structed spacing of 165 ft.
and S were used. Therefore, when Z / measurements in which the water-table To compute the drawdown due to
H = 2.50/2.70 = 0.926 from Fig. 2, heights at the time of the measurement the influence of the constructed drain
the value of kHt/SL* = 0.018 and were the same as those at the midpoint spacing during this time period, meas­
solving for L, height of the drawdown curve during ured values of k, y0, D, t, S, and L were
kHt (1.343) (2.70) (1.0) = ^ used, giving a computed y of 1.32 ft
u =
=
compared with a measured value of
(0.018)S (0.018) (0.238) 1.33 ft.
and L = 29 ft, compared to a con each specific period. Specific yield was As in example 1 the following com­
structed spacing of 30 ft. computed for each period by dividing putations show comparisons between
To compute the drawdown due to the volume of water discharged by the computed and measured water-table
the influence of the constructed drain volume of soil dewatered. The average heights during the period August 7 to
spacing during this time period, meas- flow depth ( D ) was calculated by the
1964 • TRANSACTIONS OF THE ASAE 143
 yo
however, to predict a satisfactory drain
y
Date, t, k, s, Meas­ Com­ D, kDt
y/yo Meas­ Com­
spacing for this range through a ju­
Aug. days ft/day percent ured puted feet SL 2 ured puted dicious use of both cases.
feet feet feet feet
7 1.53
Table 2 shows the comparison be­
9 1.98 4.10 5.80 1.53 5.57 0.0286 0.862 1.33 1.32 tween measured and computed values
13 4.12 2.82 5.30 1.33 1.32 5.47 0.0441 0.750 0.97 0.99
16 2.90 2.57 3.85 0.97 0.99 5.29 0.0376 0.797 0.77 0.79 of spacing and water-table height for
various values of d/y0. As can be seen,
T A B L E 1. SPACING COMPARISONS use of a depth of D = d + t/ 0 /2 as the accuracy of prediction increases,
P e r c e n t of t h e cases w h e r e being the best overall selection. As generally, as the ratio of d/y0 increases,
Data computed spacing was within this prompted some adverse comment, or as the original assumptions in the
+ 5 percent ± 10 percent ± 1 5 percent we looked into the matter. The Ca­ derivation of the drain-spacing equa­
percent percent percent nadian drain installation (basin No. 3) tion are approached.
Australia 25 50 73
Canada 53 67 80 covered the case where the drain was The measured field data used in mak­
Yuma Mesa 50 67 92 on the botton of the aquifer. The Aus­ ing the various comparisons were in un­
All 36 57 78
tralian drains, reported on in this pa­ usual detail, but were generally not col­
Midpoint water-table comparisons
per, were at varying locations within lected specifically for c h e c k i n g the
P e r c e n t of t h e cases w h e r e c o m p u t e d
Data water-table height was within the aquifer, or at heights above the transient-flow theory. That is, many
+ 5 percent ± 10 percent ± 1 5 percent barrier of from 0.3 ft to about 6 ft permeability measurements were not
percent percent percent with corresponding d/y0 values from correlated with water-table heights dur­
Australia 60 97 97 about 0.1 to 5.9. ing specific time periods as would be
Canada 60 73 73
Yuma Mesa 25 25 75 A study of the results of the compu­ necessary for proper checks in nonuni­
All 54 79 88 form soils. Had this been done, an
tations and checks indicated that where
d/y0 ^ 0 . 1 0 the spacing computations even greater accuracy of prediction un­
Again it cannot be claimed that all should be made on the basis of the case doubtedly would have been obtained.
comparisons of spacing and water-table where the drain is placed at the bottom However, the c o m p a r i s o n s are ex­
heights for the case covered by this of the aquifer, or on the barrier. Good tremely gratifying and give ample proof
example checked as closely as these, correlation was obtained when these of the general accuracy of Figs. 1 and
but all gave good correlation as shown conditions existed and the proper case 2 and usefulness of the transient-flow
by Table 1 and Figs. 3 and 4. used. The computations and compari­ concept in the computation of drain
The original presentation of the tran­ sons also showed that, from a practical spacing.
sient-flow theory (2) treated two cases standpoint, the selection of D = d +
— where the drains are at shallow depth y0/2 as the average flow depth was ap­ METHOD OF U S E
in the aquifer, i.e., where d > > yQ; and parently a satisfactory selection and It should be noted, however, that
where they are at the bottom of the adequately c o v e r s the intermediate these computations and comparisons
aquifer or on the barrier. An attempt case. Good correlation was obtained give only a check on the theory and
was made to cover the intermediate for this case where the depth, d, was equations. The transient-flow theory
case (i.e., where the depth, d, from the not large compared to the depth, y, at and the equations and curves which
drain to the barrier was not large com­ least down to the point where d/y0 = have been developed do not, in them­
pared to the height, y0 from the drain 0.8. Unfortunately none of the drain selves, provide a method of predicting
to the water table) through a judicious data produced a d/y0 value within the drain spacing where intermittent re­
selection of the a v e r a g e depth, D, range between 0.1 and 0.8. There still charge and the resultant rise and fall
through which water moves toward the remains a question as to which case in water table are involved. The theory
drain. This selection was obtained by should be used in computing drain does, however, relate the behavior of
comparing the l i n e a r and nonlinear spacing when the d/y0 value falls with­ the water table to time, physical sub­
steady-state cases which indicated the in this range. It should be possible, surface characteristics, and drain spac-
- 1 ■ I i i 1 1 1 ' / ' /
4o ' '/I
3.6
•\yy *S ,
5.2

>
^ 2.8 / / §r '/*T -J
N
L. //• * y / «y• */ / /
° 24 — J
>s
/ 7 /
7 //
£
u
ZO J
3 300l ///y/
I C 1-6 - J
o // y& Ss
O
////X '
1.2
'/ys • 1
o.e Jy^y -

Computed Spacing (fi) oA

/ i i 1 1 1 l i t ! 1 i
0.4- 0-8 1.1 >.& 1.0 2.4 2.8 3.2 3.6 *.o
Computed yorZ(fJ)
FIG. 4 Comparison between measured and computed water-
FIG. 3 Comparison between constructed and computed spacing. table heights.
144 TRANSACTIONS OF THE ASAE • 1964
 TABLE 2 (11) Trial drain spacing of 1,450
Percent of cases where computed values were within ft.
c varying percentages of measured values With the assumption that the water
(where
C — d/yo) Spacing (percent) Water-table height (percent) table reaches the maximum allowable
±5 ±10 ±15 ±5 ±10 ±15 height (y0) immediately after the ap­
0.82 to 0.88 0 33 66 0 100 100 plication of the last irrigation of each
1.10 to 1.87 50 67 83 42 100 100 season, we are in a position to compute
2.06 to 3.70 20 100 40 80 100
4.30 to 5.90 67 80 67 the D value for the first drain-out time
100 100 100 100
interval. With this value and the val­
ing and is thus a flexible and highly (5) Specific yield in the zone in
ues of k, t, S, and assumed L, the first
useful tool. During the past several which the water table will fluctuate is
step in applying the method is to com­
years various methods of use have been 18 percent. (In non-uniform soils, the
pute the kDt/SL2 value for the first
devised, tried, and discarded. weighted average specific yield appears
time interval. With this value and the
In view of the necessity for coordi­ to give satisfactory results. For general
relation of Fig. 1, it is possible to find
nating such factors as permeability, use, the specific yield in the zone be­
the value of y/y0. Knowing the initial
specific yield, deep percolation or re­ tween the drain and maximum allow­
y0, we can compute y, or the height
charge, storage, and varying-head con­ able water table can be used. If the
to which the midpoint water table falls
ditions and drain-out time with spacing, specific yield is not known, an approxi­
during this time period. This process
it has been concluded that, in general, mate value may be obtained by using
is repeated for each successive time in­
the determination of drain spacing can­ the weighted average permeability in
terval, obtaining for each the water-
not properly be considered a simple, this zone in conjunction with Fig. 5,
table height attained as a net result of
single computation as suggested by the which shows the general relationship
each successive recharge and drain out.
author (2) and other workers. At­ between p e r m e a b i l i t y and specific
Note that, if dynamic equilibrium is to
tempts have been made to use a single yield.)
have been obtained, the water table
computation for drain spacing by de­ (6) Maximum allowable midpoint must again reach the maximum allow­
veloping curves integrating the above height of the water table above the able height at the beginning of the suc­
factors for specific conditions. When drain is 4 feet. This height is depend­ ceeding non-irrigation season drain-out
such curves have been developed for ent on the root zone requirements of period. Obviously this is a hunt-and-
the specific condition under considera­ the crops to be grown or on require­ try process in which a drain spacing is
tion, this method is satisfactory. How­ ments for salinity control and on drain assumed and a check is made to see if,
ever, the development of such curves depth. with the prescribed physical conditions,
is quite tedious and does not lend it­ (7) Deep percolation from each ir­ the successive intermittent water-table
self to non-uniform conditions of re­ rigation (also assumed to be the same buildup and drain-out will offset each
charge, drain-out time, and flow depth. from a spring snowmelt) is 1 in. or other on an annual basis. It is nor­
Under most drainage situations, under 0.083 ft. The amount of deep percola­ mally necessary, however, to make only
either irrigation or rainfall, these con­ tion can be varied for each irrigation if two drain-spacing assumptions before
ditions can seldom be considered uni­ it is indicated or desired. The water- the final estimate of spacing can be
form. Because there can be so many table buildup from each irrigation is verified. In this sample computation,
different combinations of conditions, it the deep percolation divided by the the first assumed spacing of 1,400 ft
was concluded that the incremental- specific yield, or in this example: 0.083 gave a final water-table height of 3.83
step approach is the most flexible and - 0.18 = 0.46 ft. ft at the beginning of the following non-
useful for drain-spacing computations. irrigation period. This was less than
(8) Approximate dates of snowmelt
Examples 3 and 4 give the Bureau the maximum allowable height of 4 ft
and irrigations are:
of Reclamation's present method of and indicated that a wider spacing
computing drain spacing. This method could be used. A second trial with an
is applicable under any combination of Time
period assumed spacing of 1,500 ft gave a
time, recharge, and hydraulic head con­ Recharge No. Date between height of 4.15 ft. A straight-line rela­
ditions. Example 3 covers the case successive tion between spacing and buildup in­
where the drain is located above the Snow melt
recharges
dicated a spacing of about 1,450 ft
April 22
barrier zone. Example 4 covers the First irrigation June 6 45 would produce the maximum allowable
Second irrigation July 1 25
case where the drain is located directly Third irrigation July 21 20 height of 4 ft. The following compu­
on the barrier zone. Fourth irrigation August 4 14
Fifth irrigation August 18 14 tations verify this spacing:
Example 3 The following conditions Sixth irrigation September 1 14
132 Column 1 Number assigned to each
are assumed:
successive increment of recharge such
(1) Depth from ground surface to (9) A non-irrigation period of 233 as snowmelt (SM), rain, or irrigation.
barrier = 30 feet. (365-132) days when no recharge is
(2) Depth from ground surface to Column 2 Length of drain-out period
added to the water table. (time between successive increments
drain = 8 feet.
(3) Homogeneous, isotropic soil ma­ (10) The water table immediately of recharge or between incremental
after the last irrigation of the previous drain-out time periods).
terials between maximum allowable wa­
year has reached the maximum allow­ Column 3 I n s t a n t a n e o u s buildup
ter table and barrier. (The permeabil­
able height of 4 ft above the drain. from each recharge increment.
ity and specific yield data from the Aus­
tralian and Canadian data indicate that COMPUTATION OF WATER-TABLE BUILDUP WITH SPACING OF 1,450 FEET
this is not a necessary requirement if Buildup kDt
the measured values are properly used Irrig. No. t, days per rrrig., yo, feet D, feet y/yo y
feet sU
to get the weighted average.) (2)
(1) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)
(4) Permeability in the zone be­ 6 117 0.46 4.00 24.00 0.0740 0.560 2.24
tween the maximum allowable water 116 .00 2.24 23.12 .0708 .575 1.29
SM 45 .46 1.75 22.88 .0272 .873 1.53
table and barrier is 5 in. per hour, or 1 25 .46 1.99 23.00 .0152 .953 1.90
10 ft per day. (If the soil is stratified, 2 20 .46 2.36 23.18 .0122 .969 2.29
3 14 .46 2.75 23.38 .0086 .985 2.71
this should be the weighted average 4 14 .46 3.17 23.59 .0087 .985 3.12
5 14 .46 3.58 23.79 .0088 .985 3.53
permeability of this zone.) 6 117 .46 3.99

1964 • TRANSACTIONS OF THE ASAE 145

 50
^ 40
J30
o
>
20|

HI
^ 5

« 3
a-
in

2o 3o 30 Ao So 60
0.2 0.3 0.5 1.0 2 3 5 » 8o
Permeab'tlify (inches/hour)
FIG. 5 Curve indicating general relationship between specific FIG. 6 Relationship between d and d' (Hooghoudt convergence
yield and permeability. correction).
Column 4 Water-table height at mid­ moderate and the computed drainable Moody's correction or the transient-flow
point between drains immediately after depth, D, at the beginning of each spacing method, d values greater than
each buildup or at beginning of incre­ drain-out time period will satisfactorily L / 4 should not be used.
mental time periods during the non- approximate t h e flow c o n d i t i o n s
Hooghoudt's Correction for
irrigation season drain out (column 8 throughout the time period.
Convergence
of preceding period plus column 3 of This calculation has not considered
current period). the reduction in spacing due to the re­ The method developed by Hoog­
Column 5 Average depth of flow, d striction to flow caused by convergence houdt (4) considers the convergence
+ y0/2 (d should be limited to L / 4 ) . of the flow lines as they approach the correction in the primary spacing cal­
Column 6 A calculated value repre­ drain. Several methods of correcting culation. He uses an equivalent depth
senting the flow conditions during any for convergence have been developed. d' to replace d in the calculation of D.
particular drain-out period Two methods are given. The equivalent values of d' are depend­
ent on the actual depth from drain to
X Col. 2 X Col. 5. Moody'sf Correction for barrier, d, effective drain radius, r, and
{sz7j Convergence spacing, L. Curves for d' (for r value
Column 7 Taken from Fig, 1 for This method uses a simple formula of 0.7 ft) were developed by the au­
value in Column 6. which gives a correction to be sub­ thor and are shown on Fig. 6. This
Column 8 M i d p o i n t water-table tracted from the computed spacing of method also involves a hunt-and-try
height above drain at end of each drain- example 3: process of assuming drain spacings.
out period (Col. 4 X Col. 7 ) .
The spacing of 1,450 ft produces a Correction = D log e — (where d ^ L/4)
maximum water table about 3.99 ft 4r
above the drain instead of the 4 ft
where In example 3, d is 22 ft and the cor­
stated as the permissible maximum. The
spacing could be lengthened so as to D = average depth of flow = 23.4 rected spacing (as computed above) is
produce just the 4-ft rise. However, in r = outside radius of the tile or tile approximately 1,400 ft. T h e r e f o r e ,
view of the probable accuracy of other plus any gravel envelope; or for open from Fig. 6 the equivalent depth d' is
factors used in the calculations, further drains, one-half bottom width; in this found to be 20 ft. Then the corrected
refinement of spacing is not warranted. example 4-in. tile plus 6 in. of gravel D or D ' to be used in the spacing cal­
It has previously been shown that envelope assumed culations would be 20 + t/ 0 /2.
the selection of D = d + t/ 0 /2, as pro­ OQ 4
posed in the original presentation ( 2 ) , Correction = 23.4 log;e — — = 50 ft
apparently was a satisfactory selection * (4) (0.7)
to cover the intermediate case where The corrected spacing then would be The following example shows how
the depth d was not necessarily large 1,450 - 50 = 1,400 ft. This correc­ D r is used in the calculation:
compared to the d e p t h y0. It was tion is applicable when d — L / 4 . Stud­ This gives essentially the same wa­
pointed out, however, that it did not ies have shown that depths where d > ter-table heights as were obtained in
remove restrictions of another sort. It L / 4 are not effective in producing previous calculations. It verifies the
still is essential to restrict the use in wider drain spacing. Thus, in either spacing as corrected for convergence by
this case to situations where the amount the other method and we can assume,
of lowering of the water table is mod­ f Moody, W. T., engineer, U.S. Bureau of
Reclamation. (Continued on page 151)
erate. It is readily apparent that, if
COMPUTATION OF WATER-TABLE BUILDUP WITH SPACING O F 1,400 FEET
we were to try to drain out, say, three- AND USING HOOGHOUDT'S CORRECTION FOR CONVERGENCE
fourths of the depth, y0, the initially
chosen value of D would become inap­ Buildup kD't
Irrig. No. t, days per rrrig., yo, feet D', feet y/yo y, feet
propriate to represent the flow thick­ feet s!7
ness toward the end of the drainage 6 117 0.46 4.00 22.00 0.0730 0.565 2.26
period. To account for this restriction, 116 .00 2.26 21.13 .0694 .585 1.32
SM 45 .46 1.78 20.89 .0266 .879 1.56
the non-irrigation period of 233 days 1 25 .46 2.02 21.01 .0149 .955 1.95
2 20 .46 2.41 21.21 .0120 .970 2.34
has been divided into two time periods. 3 14 .46 2.80 21.40 .0085 .986 2.76
By doing this, the lowering of the wa­ 4 14 .46 3.22 21.61 .0086 .986 3.17
5 14 .46 3.63 21.82 .0087 .985 3.57
ter table during any period will be 6 117 .46 4.03

146 TRANSACTIONS OF THE ASAE • 1964

 TABLE 4. MONTHLY DISTRIBUTION OF
DISCHARGE FROM 3,730 ACRES krea- Discharge Curve
Discharge Discharge
00. Q ~PI"j r 7Z3 qqntn
Month -44
Month (acre-feet) (acre-feet) 4j + l_Li
ui-l
January 420 August 715
February 332 September 610 ;
March
April
405
526
October
November
600
622
|
May 658 December 565 rx\
June 750
July 815 Total 7,018
"4
tions per year for each crop can be
used to derive the annual recharge from
irrigation, as in Table 5. oo.c
«/t
TABLE 5. . —1 jLlL. 1— .
., 1 }w
% - ••

— -44444-/
Recharge
Crop
No. of
irrigations Per 4)► -
annually irrigation Annually Lt*
(inches) (feet)
a
Alfalfa 16 1.54 2.05 JC
► \ j !

Saff lower 14 1.40 1.64 o

01l
i

Vegetables 6 1.40 0.70

a\ S m a l l area ro*\-G per &crk / i i ' 1 II J
Cotton
Barley
Vegetables
11
7
7
1.40
1.26
1.40
1.28
0.74
0.82 1.0
A » T r a n n4)on curve
[.-._. I X 444 -J? *y 4lt- ; " ™ ; ! • 1I L.J
Bermuda 14 1.54 1.80 .... I
1 JI
Total
Average per acre annually =
9.03
9.03/5 = 1.81 ft Writ
nFLJZL
iTL—-
Ill
l-a^e. are« r«*e per acre
| ! r.....i-.|...
ft I \\
m
The annual recharge for the 3,730
acres is then 3,730 X 1.81 = 6,751 m 1
i.Ty^^o .
.136.400 * i f c o / T aoo*fc1 cfs
1i1

acre-feet, which compares with the

computed annual discharge of 7,018
acre-feet. The annual discharge is
within 4 percent of the annual recharge
which indicates that conditions of "dy­
namic equilibrium," as defined at the
beginning of this paper, have essen­
tially been met under the specified con­
ditions.
References
1 Dumm, L. D. Drain-spacing formula. Ag­
ricultural Engineering 35:(10)726-730, October
1954.
--
0.1
IO
FIG. 8 Area discharge curve.
2 Dumm, L. D. Validity and use of the tran­
sient-flow concept in subsurface drainage. ASAE
Paper No. 60-717, December 1960.
3 Winger, R. J. In-place permeability tests
and their use in subsurface drainage. Transac­
tions, Fourth Congress, International Commis­
sion on Irrigation and Drainage, 1960.
4 Dumm, L. D. Drain-spacing method used
\oo \ooo 10,000
Area(acres)
by the Bureau of Reclamation. Paper presented
at ARS-SCS drainage workshop, Riverside, Calif.,
February 1962.
5 Ligon, James T., Johnson, Howard P., and
Kirkham, Don. Glass bead-glycerol model for
studying the falling water table between open
ditch drains. Presented at 1962 annual meeting,
American Society of Agricultural Engineers;
Washington, D.C.; June 17-20, 1962.

TRANSIENT-FLOW CONCEPT IN SUBSURFACE tained by using either a single or a se­

DRAINAGE: ITS VALIDITY AND USE
COMPUTATION OF WATER-TABLE BUILDUP WITH SPACING OF 470 FEET
Buildup per
Irrig. No. t, days irrig., feet
6 117
116
SM 45
1 25
' 2 20
3 14
4 14
5 14
6 117
therefore, that the correct spacing for
drains in this example is approximately
1,400 feet.
Example 4 This example assumes
the drains located on the barrier layer.
The coefficients of permeability, spe­
cific yield, and time and amount of
deep percolation from the previous ex­
ample have been used.
The computations of drain spacing
and water-table heights are similar to
those in the previous example, except
that the curve of Fig. 2 showing the
relationship between the dimensionless
parameters Z/H and kHt/SL2 is used
with a modified computing form. The
cut-and-try process is necessary, but
as in the previous example the correct
1964 • TRANSACTIONS OF THE ASAE
ries of time steps. Also a correction for
(Continued from page 146) convergence is not necessary in this
procedure because it is accounted for
in the initial water-table profile.
kHt,
H, feet Z/H Z, feet References
SL2 1 Carslaw, H. S. and Jeager, J. C. Conduc­
0.46 4.00 0.1176 0.658 2.63 tion of heat in solids. Second edition, Oxford
.00 2.63 .0765 .748 1.97 University Press, 1959.
.46 2.43 .0273 .892 2.16 2 Dumm, L. D. Drain spacing formula. Agri­
.46 2.62 .0165 .931 cultural Engineering 35: (10)726-730, October
2.44 1954.
.46 2.90 .0146 .939 2.72 3 Glover, R. E. and others. Cooling of con­
.46 3.18 .0112 .954 3.03 crete dams. Boulder canyon project, (final re­
.46 3.49 .0123 .948 3.31 ports) U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Bulletin 3,
.46 3.77 .0132 .945 3.56 1949.
.46 4.02 4 Maasland, M. The relationship between
permeability and the discharge, depth, and spac­
spacing can usually be determined after ing of tile drains. Bulletin No. 1, Groundwater
and Drainage Series, Water Conservation and
two trial computations. The curve of Irrigation Commission, New South Wales, Aus­
tralia, 1956.
Fig. 2 is based on the solution of a non­ 5 Maasland, M. and Haskew, C. W. The
linear partial differential equation which auger hole method of measuring the hydraulic
conductivity of soils and its application to tile
predicts the behavior of the water lev­ drainage problems. Third Congress, International
els between parallel drains with time, Commission on Irrigation and Drainage, R5,
Question 8:8.69-8.114, 1957.
as previously presented by the author 6 Maasland, M. Water table fluctation induced
by intermittent recharge. Journal of Geophysical
(2). Here H represents the saturated Research 64:(5)549-559, May 1959.
thickness through which the flow takes 7 Talsma, T. and Haskew, H. C. Investiga­
tion of watertable response to tile drains in com­
place. Since the drains are on the bar­ parison with theory. Journal of Geophysical Re­
search 64:(ll)1933-44, November 1959.
rier, there is no requirement for an ef­ 8 Talsma, T. Detailed records on tile drain
fective thickness such as D = (d + design and performance. Adendum to paper, "In­
vestigation of water table response to tile drains
t//2) as in the p r e v i o u s example. in comparison with theory."
9 Winger, R. J. Jr. In-place permeability tests
Hence, the restriction for only mod­ and their use in subsurface drainage. Fourth
erate lowering of the water table is Congress, International Commission on Irrigation
and Drainage, R. 23, Question 11, 11.418-
removed. For this reason, the drop in 11.469, 1959.
10 Unpublished data received from the Drain­
water table during the long drain-out age Division Prairie Farm Rehabilitation, De­
between irrigation cycles can be ob­ partment of Agriculture, Vauxhall, Alberta, Can­
ada.
151