See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: http://www.researchgate.net/publication/239387786

Closure to Simple Equations for Aquifer

Parameters from Drawdowns in Large-Diameter
Wells by Sushil K. Singh

ARTICLE in JOURNAL OF IRRIGATION AND DRAINAGE ENGINEERING FEBRUARY 2009

Impact Factor: 1.09 DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9437(2009)135:1(128)

CITATIONS DOWNLOADS VIEWS

5 14 35

1 AUTHOR:

Sushil Singh
National Institute of Hydrology
185 PUBLICATIONS 694 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Available from: Sushil Singh

Retrieved on: 23 June 2015
 DISCUSSIONS AND CLOSURES
Discussion of Estimating Storage
Coefficient and Transmissivity from Slug
Test Data by Prabhata K. Swamee
and Sushil K. Singh
September/October 2007, Vol. 133, No. 5, pp. 505507.
DOI: 10.1061/ASCE 0733-94372007133:5505
Robert P. Chapuis1
1
Dept. of Civil, Geological, and Mining Engineering, cole Polytech-
nique, PO Box 6079, Stn CV, Montreal, Quebec, Canada H3C 3A7.
E-mail: robert.chapuis@polymtl.ca
The authors have proposed an approximation for the well function
tabulated by Cooper et al. 1967 for their slug test solution. They
then have applied a least-squares error method to estimate the
aquifer parameters for two data sets. However, this slug test so-
lution is physically and mathematically wrong Chapuis 1998
and thus should no longer be used by engineers. The Cooper et al.
1967 solution is in error by a factor of 5-10 for T values and
by a factor of 200-50,000 for S values Chapuis 2009. Similarly,
the solution for pulse tests Bredehoeft and Papadopulos 1980 is
in error by a factor 100 for T and a factor 104 108 for S Chapuis
and Cazaux 2002. As a result, the standard D4104 ASTM
2006b for slug tests was not renewed in 2002 by ASTM, and the
interpretation method of standard D4631 for pulse tests ASTM
2006a is likely to be modified.
One may question why these authors and others continue to
use this inaccurate solution. A related discussion Chapuis 2009
suggests that it may be the result of poor communication between
engineers and scientists. Unfortunately, the authors may have
been misled by this communication problem.
References
ASTM. 2006a. Standard test method for determining transmissivity
and storativity of low permeability rocks by in situ measurements
using the pressure pulse technique D4631. ASTM International,
West Conshohocken, Pa.
ASTM. 2006b. Standard test method for determining transmissivity of
nonleaky confined aquifers by overdamped response to instantaneous
change in head D4104. ASTM International, West Conshohocken,
Pa.
Bredehoeft, J. D., and Papadopulos, S. S. 1980. A method for deter-
mining the hydraulic properties of tight formations. Water Resour.
Res., 16, 233238.
Chapuis, R. P. 1998. Overdamped slug test in monitoring wells:
Review of interpretation methods with mathematical, physical and
numerical analysis of storativity influence. Can. Geotech. J., 355,
697719.
Chapuis, R. P. 2009. New methods for aquifer parameters from slug
test data: Discussion. J. Irrig. Drain. Eng., in press.
Chapuis, R. P., and Cazaux, D. 2002. Pressure-pulse test for field hy-
draulic conductivity of soils: Is the usual interpretation method ad-
equate? Evaluation and remediation of low and dual porosity
environments, M. N. Sara and L. G. Everett, eds., ASTM Interna-
tional, West Conshohocken, Pa., 6682.
JOURNAL OF IRRIGATION AND DRAINAGE ENGINEERING ASCE / JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2009 / 125
Downloaded 21 Apr 2009 to 210.212.58.170. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright; see http://pubs.asce.org/copyright
Cooper, H. H., Jr., Bredehoeft, J. D., and Papadopulos, I. S. 1967.
Response of a finite-diameter well to an instantaneous change of
water. Water Resour. Res., 31, 263269.
Discussion of Estimating Storage
Coefficient and Transmissivity from Slug
Test Data by Prabhata K. Swamee and
Sushil K. Singh
September/October 2007, Vol. 133, No. 5, pp. 505507.
DOI: 10.1061/ASCE0733-94292007133:5505
Zekai en1
1
Istanbul Technical Univ., Faculty of Civil Engineering, Hydraulics and
Water Resources Division, Maslak 34469, Istanbul, Turkey. E-mail:
zsen@itu.edu.tr
This technical note denies one of the most significant aspects of
any modeling study: that the model has to be parsimonious, i.e.,
economic in terms of the number of parameters. In this technical
note the basic simple equations Eqs. 15 are rendered into a
riddle of complicated expression through Eq. 6, which involves
seven parameters, each of which has no physical, rational, or
logical meaning. Where is the scientific objectivity in the deriva-
tion of Eq. 6? It seems to be the subjective derivation of the
authors, perhaps following much trial and error. In contrast, Eqs.
15 are based on already available tables that are very useful in
practical applications.
In the aquifer parameters estimation section the authors again
use the optimization technique with the objective of minimizing
the error as defined in Eq. 9. The application indicates that there
are absolute relative errors of 4.5 and 57% between the Cooper et
al. 1967 transmissivity and storage coefficient estimations and
authors. As far as the transmissivity is concerned, 4.5% improve-
ment if it is improvement at all is not significant practically. On
the other hand, the relative error of 57% for storativity implies
that the authors approach is not convenient. This can also be
deduced from the percentage error graphs in Figs. 2 and 3, which
imply that the errors have structural serial dependence, because
the successive values do not fluctuate randomly around the zero
error horizontal level. Additionally, the percent error propagation
with time has an increasing variance, which indicates that the
errors are not stationary and hence the proposed model is not
suitable. Thus, the final sentence in the conclusion is not valid at
all.
References
Cooper, H. H., Jr., Bredehoeft, J. D., and Papadopulos, I. S. 1967 Re-
sponse of a finite-diameter well to an instantaneous charge of water.
Water Resour. Res., 31, 263269.

Closure to Estimating Storage Coefficient
and Transmissivity from Slug Test Data by
Prabhata K. Swamee and Sushil K. Singh
September/October 2007, Vol. 133, No. 5, pp. 505507.
DOI: 10.1061/ASCE0733-94372007133:5505
Sushil K. Singh1 and Prabhata K. Swamee2
1
Scientist, National Institute of Hydrology, Roorkee-247667, Uttarak-
hand, India. E-mail: sukusi1@yahoo.com
2
Emeritus Fellow, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Tech-
nology Roorkee, Roorkee-247667, Uttarakhand, India. E-mail:
swameefce@yahoo.com
The writers are thankful to the discussers for raising certain
points, which are clarified below:
Points by Chapuis
The Cooper et al. 1967 solution pertaining to slug tests is physi-
cally and mathematically correct and applicable to the field tests
that satisfy the assumptions involved in the derivation of the so-
lution. The reasoning given by Chapuis 1998 for the invalidity
of this solution is not justified. This solution is based on the
solution of an analogous problem a cylindrical metallic perfect
conductor in an infinite medium of lower thermal conductivity of
heat conduction given by Carslaw and Jaeger 1959, p. 341-342.
The analogy gives rise to the following assumptions: 1 there is
no skin effect between the well and aquifer; 2 the water moves
in the well with no resistance, which denotes a unity storage
coefficient for the well space; and 3 the water transfer between
the well and aquifer is analogous to the heat transfer between the
metallic conductor and medium. The writers have used rw = rc
giving = S, which does not violate the assumption considered by
Carslaw and Jaeger 1959, i.e., is twice the ratio of the heat
capacity of an equivalent volume of the medium to that of the
perfect conductor. Based on the similar reasoning, Eq. 3 of the
writers technical note, given by Cooper et al. 1967, seems cor-
rect.
The Cooper et al. 1967 analytical solution and curve match-
ing method should not be treated as equally accurate. More reli-
able methods a diagnostic curve method and a simple objective
method for estimating aquifer parameters from slug test data
have been proposed by Singh 2007. Both sets of data used by
Chapuis 1998 for assessing the reliability of the Cooper et al.
1967 curve matching method pertain to partially penetrating
wells, while the Cooper et al. 1967 method is applicable for
fully penetrating wells. Therefore, the comparison and conclu-
sions as given by Chapuis 1998 are not justified. The large
errors reported in the discussion may be the result of partial pen-
etration and the empirical nature of the method used by the dis-
cusser. A large error may be involved in numerically comparing
the derivative as suggested by Chapuis 1998 and would be still
more if measurements are made at longer time intervals. The
straight-line velocity graph of Chapuis 1998 is based on inap-
propriate data, i.e., on a partially penetrating well. Also, the semi-
logarithmic curve matching procedure suggested by Chapuis
126 / JOURNAL OF IRRIGATION AND DRAINAGE ENGINEERING ASCE / JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2009
Downloaded 21 Apr 2009 to 210.212.58.170. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright; see http://pubs.asce.org/copyright
1998 for estimating the aquifer parameters is erroneous and not
justified.
In view of the scope of this closure, the writers refrain from
further commenting on the Chapuis 1998 method and will not
discuss the issue of the solution provided by Bredehoeft and Pa-
padopulos 1980 as this solution was not used in the original
technical note. However, there may be some error in the method
used by the discusser. The writers believe it is inappropriate to
discuss ASTM procedures here. Any agency may adopt or recom-
mend a procedure/method for a particular objective, but this
should not be a binding on research.
The basic solution used by the writers is correct.
Points by Sen
The parameters of a model and the constants of an equation
should be interpreted differently, yet the discussion does not dif-
ferentiate between the two. In Eq. 6, there are only two param-
eters of the model, i.e., and . The values k1-k7 are seven
constants, which were obtained by minimizing the error between
the tabulated values of W and Eq. 6, resulting in Eq. 7. The
writers Eq. 7 is computationally much simpler than Eq. 2,
which involves numerical integration of a complex function con-
sisting of Bessel functions of different types and orders. Eq. 7
can be used for calculating W for any set of values of the argu-
ments, while it may require double interpolation if tabulated val-
ues of W are used. This restricts the practical application of the
tabulated values.
The Cooper et al. 1967 solution Eqs. 15 and curve
matching method for estimating aquifer parameters should be
treated differently as far as accuracy is concerned. Eqs. 15
are analytically derived, and Cooper et al. 1967 stated that the
storage coefficient cannot be estimated reliably using their curve
matching method. The estimates obtained using the Cooper et al.
1967 curve matching method should not be used as a bench-
mark. The writers method yields more reliable estimates of the
parameters than those obtained using the Cooper et al. 1967
method, which has been substantiated in Table 1 of the original
technical note along with the standard error of estimate SEE as
a reliability criterion.
References
Bredehoeft, J. D., and Papadopulos, S. S. 1980. A method for deter-
mining the hydraulic properties of tight formations. Water Resour.
Res., 16, 233238.
Carslaw, H. S., and Jaeger, J. C. 1959. Conduction of heat in solids,
Oxford University Press, New Delhi, India.
Chapuis, R. P. 1998. Overdamped slug test in monitoring wells: Re-
view of interpretation methods with mathematical, physical and nu-
merical analysis of storativity influence. Can. Geotech. J., 355,
697719.
Cooper, H. H., Jr., Bredehoeft, J. D., and Papadopulos, I. S. 1967.
Response of a finite-diameter well to an instantaneous charge of
water. Water Resour. Res., 31, 263269.
Singh, S. K. 2007. New methods for aquifer parameters from slug test
data. J. Irrig. Drain. Eng., 1333, 272275.

Discussion of Simple Equations for
Aquifer Parameters from Drawdowns in
Large-Diameter Wells by Sushil K. Singh
May/June 2007, Vol. 133, No. 3, pp. 279281.
DOI: 10.1061/ASCE0733-94372007133:3279
Zekai en1
1
Istanbul Technical Univ., Faculty of Civil Engineering, Hydraulics and
Water Resources Division, Maslak 34469, Istanbul, Turkey. E-mail:
zsen@itu.edu.tr
Aquifer test analysis and parameter estimations should be based
on scientific, philosophical, logical, physical, and then mathemati-
cal procedures by considering the hydrogeological setup of the
well location and its vicinity for the best benefit, reliable interpre-
tations, and parameter estimations en 1995. It is not possible to
rely on any mathematical procedure if the physical foundations
are missing, yet the derivations of the author lack such founda-
tions. Although the author uses the phrase Simple Equations in
the title of his technical paper, in fact his equations are compli-
cated and physically meaningless. See, for example, Eqs. 5
13, which are the convenient versions of the basic and
physically plausible Eqs. 13. In addition, the simplifications
of the aquifer test mathematics Eqs. 13 are presented either
in the form of convenient tables or as type curves for practical
uses. The author tries to cover this simple procedure with a te-
dious approach that includes curves similar to type curves as in
Fig. 1 and physically implausible equations, which yield aquifer
parameter estimations without visual inspection of genuine time-
drawdown data from the field.
In the application section, the author generates synthetically
time-drawdown data from available tables and hence adopts an
ideal curve from already available type curves with whole exten-
sions for small and large times. Then he tries to calculate the
aquifer parameters from his proposed curves. The 50 min data
requirement is an implied result of such a generation, and it is
well-known from field applications that 50 min is a very short
duration for aquifer response, especially in large-diameter wells,
which are used in low transmissivity aquifers. It is already stated
in the technical note that It is appropriate to mention here that
these data up to 50 min nearly fall on the straight line portion of
the Papadopulos and Cooper 1967 or Wikramaratna 1985
curve. This shows that the aquifer parameters cannot be estimated
from these data using the curve matching methods of Papadopu-
los and Cooper 1967 or Wikramaratna 1985. The author ad-
mits that the data up to 50 min nearly falls on the straight line
portion of the Papadopulos and Cooper curve, which means that
the pump discharge comes from well storage. Hence the aquifer
parameter estimations cannot be regarded as reliable because
there is not yet aquifer response.
On the other hand, the author alleges, without any scientific
evidence, that for data from Zdankus 1974 the Papadopulos and
Cooper 1967 curve method cannot yield a reliable estimate of
the aquifer parameters. In fact this method yields in many cases
reliable estimates of the transmissivity but not storativity. It
would have been more illuminating if the author had presented
the unreliable Papadopulos and Cooper 1967 parameter estima-
tions and compared them with the results in his technical note.
In conclusion, the procedure presented by the author is math-
ematical fantasy, not a physical interpretation or a reliable param-
eter estimation of an aquifer test. The definition of the unimodal
curve has no physical basis, and it is a sort of type curve. This
JOURNAL OF IRRIGATION AND DRAINAGE ENGINEERING ASCE / JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2009 / 127
Downloaded 21 Apr 2009 to 210.212.58.170. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright; see http://pubs.asce.org/copyright
increases the tediousness of the aquifer parameter estimation pro-
cedure application in practice. The classical type curve matching
procedures show the local deviations from the relevant type
curve, and an aquifers heterogeneity can be interpreted accord-
ingly en 1994.
References
Papadopulos, I. S., and Cooper, H. H. 1967. Drawdown in a well of
large diameter. Water Resour. Res., 31, 241244.
en, Z. 1994. Hydrogeophysical concepts in aquifer test analysis.
Nord. Hydrol., 253, 183192.
en, Z. 1995. Applied hydrogeology for scientists and engineers, CRC
Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, Fla.
Wikramaratna, R. S. 1985. A new type curve method for the analysis
of pumping tests in large diameter wells. Water Resour. Res., 212,
261264.
Zdankus, N. T. 1974. Analysis of shallow hard rock well pumping and
recovery test data. Ground Water, 125, 310317.
Discussion of Simple Equations for
Aquifer Parameters from Drawdowns in
Large-Diameter Wells by Sushil K. Singh
May/June 2007, Vol. 133, No. 3, pp. 279281.
DOI: 10.1061/ASCE0733-94372007133:3279
Mesut imen1
1
Faculty of Engineering-Architecture, Dept. of Civil Engineering,
Sleyman Demirel Univ., 32260, Isparta, Turkey. E-mail: mesutcim@
mmf.sdu.edu.tr
The author suggested a method for aquifer parameter estimates.
He states in the technical note, Due to the subjectivity of the
existing curve methods namely, the Papadopulos and Cooper
PC 1967 and Wikramaratna 1985 methods, the estimated
parameters are not very accurate and different people may arrive
at different estimates. Hence the author determined the peak and
time of the peak for each value of by using the tabulated values
given by Papadopulos and Cooper 1967. He wrote, If such a
peak is determined and even the data seem to fall on the straight
line portion of the PC curve, the aquifer parameters can be accu-
rately estimated using the proposed method. However, the pro-
posed method still contains subjectivity.
1. The peak value of the dimensionless time factor u p be-
comes 0.0010517 for = 0.01. The values of the dimension-
less well function for this u p in the PC and Theis 1935
methods are 4.43112 and 6.28116, respectively. According to
these values of the well function, a fit does not seem possible
because the straight-line portion of the PC curve matched
with the Theis curve begins after u = = 2.105, for which the
values of the well function in both the PC and Theis methods
are 10.201 and 10.2426, respectively.
2. The proposed method depends on the observed values of t p
and s2wp / t p and a very short duration of the pumping. The
pumping measurements are generally made in certain steps
of time. Therefore the determination of the peak values from
the observations is possibly arbitrary and results in subjec-
tivity. Besides, a very short duration of pumping does not
give sufficient information about the aquifer response, which
 shows fundamental properties of the confined, unconfined,
and leaky aquifers.
3. The author states that for Zdankus 1974 data the PC curve
matching method cannot yield a reliable estimate of the aqui-
fer parameters. However, is found as 0.151 whereas Eqs.
811 are developed using the data for 101 105.
The value obtained is not within this range. This shows that
the proposed method involves subjectivity.
As consequence the method presented by the author is still
handicapped by subjectivity. The reliability of the method should
be tested by the PC curve matching method on a set of field data.
References
Papadopulos, I. S., and Cooper, H. H. 1967. Drawdown in a well of
large diameter. Water Resour. Res., 31, 241244.
Theis, C. V. 1935. The relation between the lowering of the piezomet-
ric surface and the rate and duration of discharge of a well using
ground water storage. Trans., Am. Geophys. Union, 16, 519524.
Wikramaratna, R. S. 1985. A new curve method for the analysis of
pumping test in large-diameter wells. Water Resour. Res., 212,
261264.
Zdankus, N. T. 1974. Analysis of shallow hard rock well pumping and
recovery test data. Ground Water, 125, 310317.
Closure to Simple Equations for Aquifer
Parameters from Drawdowns in
Large-Diameter Wells by Sushil K. Singh
May/June 2007, Vol. 133, No. 3, pp. 279281.
DOI: 10.1061/ASCE0733-94372007133:3279
Sushil K. Singh1
1
Scientist, National Institute of Hydrology, Roorkee-247
Uttarakhand, India. E-mail: sukusi1@yahoo.com
The writer is thankful to the discussers for raising certain points,
which are clarified below:
Points by Sen
When analyzing the pumping-test data for aquifer parameters,
types of well, aquifer, and pumping should be considered in using
an appropriate analytical model that practically satisfies the field
conditions. It is not appropriate to use an analytical model, which
does not practically satisfy the types of well, aquifer, and pump-
ing. The writer has proposed computationally simple equations
for estimating the aquifer parameters. The types of well, aquifer,
and pumping that have been considered are a large-diameter
well, a confined aquifer, and a constant discharge pumping, re-
spectively. The phrase Simple Equations in the title and else-
where is meant to convey handy and computationally simple.
Eqs. 47 are derived from Eqs. 13; hence, both sets of
equations bear the same physical meanings for the parameters and
variables. Eqs. 813 have been proposed for the explicit esti-
mation of the aquifer parameters from drawdowns in a large-
diameter well, which are computationally simple calculations
can be performed even on a handheld calculator. Eqs. 13,
proposed by Papadopulos and Cooper 1967, do not explicitly
yield the estimates for the aquifer parameters and hence cannot be
128 / JOURNAL OF IRRIGATION AND DRAINAGE ENGINEERING ASCE / JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2009
Downloaded 21 Apr 2009 to 210.212.58.170. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright; see http://pubs.asce.org/copyright
compared to the writers Eqs. 813. Eq. 1 contains the well
function. The numerical evaluation of this function for given val-
ues of the arguments is tedious as it involves Bessel functions of
different types and orders. If one intends to use the tabulated
values, double interpolation is required, which makes the process
cumbersome. Singh 2007 has proposed a computationally
simple function for approximating the well function for large-
diameter wells.
The difficulties in using the Papadopulos and Cooper 1967
type curves for estimating the aquifer parameters are 1 unique
estimates of the aquifer parameters cannot be obtained; 2 reli-
able estimates of the storage coefficient cannot be obtained; 3 a
long duration pumping test is needed, which may not be feasible
with constant discharge; and 4 apart from the subjectivity in-
volved in matching the curves, interpolation for the value of is
required. The advantages of the writers method over the Papa-
dopulos and Cooper 1967 curve matching method are 1 unique
and reliable estimates of the aquifer parameters are obtained; 2
only a short duration pumping test is needed, which can save time
and money; and 3 no subjectivity is involved and the aquifer
parameters can be estimated using computationally simple equa-
tions. However, the peak and time to peak of a unimodal curve
must be determined.
In the writers method, the estimates of the aquifer parameters
are based effectively on one point, i.e., the peak of the unimodal
curve. Hence, the reliability of the estimated parameters can be
checked in an ideal sense. All the drawdowns can be simulated
using the estimated parameters and compared to the respective
observed drawdowns with a visual or numerical inspection. If the
simulated drawdowns depart systematically and substantially
from those observed, a nonideal well, aquifer, or pumping condi-
tion is confirmed.
Although an alternative set of curves has been proposed by the
writer Fig. 1, it has not been used for the estimation of aquifer
parameters for the application example. However, one can use it
for estimating the aquifer parameters by curve matching. It has
667,
the advantage of analyzing short duration pumping-test data.
However, a set of semilogarithmic diagnostic curves for estimat-
ing the aquifer parameters from shorter duration pumping-test
data has been elsewhere proposed by the writer see Singh
2008a. Using the Singh 2008a approach, it can be verified that
the synthetic data used by Wikramaratna 1985 for the verifica-
tion of his method do not pertain to the ideal conditions for which
his curves were developed.
It is the capability of a particular method to ascertain how long
a pumping duration should be in order to accurately estimate the
aquifer parameters. Most field applications are generally based on
the Papadopulos and Cooper 1967 curve matching method. With
the availability of the writers method, a comparatively shorter
duration pumping-test data can be used to accurately estimate the
aquifer parameters. The 50 min data used in the first application
example show a substantial contribution from the aquifer storage
to the pumped discharge as the hypothetical drawdowns, for no
contribution from the aquifer storage is greater than the respective
observed drawdowns. This is clear in Table 1 of this closure. The
aquifer contribution to the pumped discharge increases with time,
and at the end of 50 min, 30% of the pumped volume of water is
from the aquifer storage. To be clear, nearly fall on should be
appropriately read as seem to nearly fall on.
The curve matching method of Papadopulos and Cooper
1967 cannot yield the estimates of the aquifer parameters from
only 4 h data as considered in the second application example,
hence no comparison was made. The reason the aquifer param-
eters were not estimated using the Papadopulos and Cooper
Table 1. Comparison of Hypothetical Drawdowns for No Aquifer
Contribution with Observed Drawdowns k1 = ln
t1
t2
ln
t2
t3
ln
t3
t1
5
Hypothetical drawdowns Observed
Time with no aquifer drawdowns Eqs. 15 were obtained by fitting a parabola through the
min contribution m m points of the triplet. Two triplets containing the peak are
0.50 0.032 0.030 possible. Using Eqs. 15, one set of coordinates of the
1.25 0.080 0.072 peak is obtained for each triplet. If the coordinates of the
2.50 0.159 0.136
peak in the case of both triplets differ moderately, the aver-
age of the two should be accepted or a smooth curve should
5.00 0.318 0.245
be sketched and the smoothed coordinates of the triplet
12.50 0.796 0.484
points should be considered or a new triplet should be con-
25.00 1.529 0.723
sidered after deleting a outlier point. The above proposed
50.00 3.183 0.960 objective method of determining the peak of a unimodal
curve can also be used for the method proposed by Singh
1967 method is the same as in the case of the first application 2000.
example. 3. Although Eqs. 811 are developed using the data for
101 105 the sign of inequality in the original note
should be read with correction, these are also applicable for
Points by Cimen 101 and 105. Possible care to this effect has been
taken while developing the equations.
1. Using Eq. 8, u p = 0.001052 is obtained for = 0.01. The
value of well function for a large-diameter well is less than
References
that of the small-diameter well for this value of u p. This
indicates that only a part of the pumped discharge is from
Papadopulos, I. S., and Cooper, H. H. 1967. Drawdown in a well of
well storage and the remaining part is from aquifer storage.
large diameter. Water Resour. Res., 31, 241244.
Therefore, there is no logical problem in applying the writ- Singh, S. K. 2000. Simple method for confined-aquifer parameter es-
ers method for estimating the aquifer parameters. Applica- timation. J. Irrig. Drain. Eng., 1266, 404407.
tion of the writers method has nothing to do with the time at Singh, S. K. 2001. Confined aquifer parameters from temporal deriva-
which the Papadopulos and Cooper 1967 curves merge tive of drawdowns. J. Hydraul. Eng., 1276, 466470.
with the Theis 1935 curve; the writers method can analyze Singh, S. K. 2003. Storage coefficient and transmissivity from residual
much shorter duration data. drawdowns. J. Hydraul. Eng., 1298, 637644; Errata. 12912,
2. A short duration pumping-test data cannot yield accurate 1024.
estimates of the aquifer parameters is a conception devel- Singh, S. K. 2007. Approximation of well function for large diameter
oped because the appropriate methods were not available to wells. J. Irrig. Drain. Eng., 1334, 414416.
Singh, S. K. 2008a. Estimating aquifer parameters from early
analyze the short duration pumping-test data. Such appropri-
drawdowns in large-diameter wells. J. Irrig. Drain. Eng., 1343,
ate methods for small-diameter wells have been elsewhere 409413.
proposed by the writer see Singh 2000, 2001, 2003, 2008b. Singh, S. K. 2008b. Diagnostic curve for confined aquifer parameters
Determination of the peak and time to peak may involve a from early drawdowns. J. Irrig. Drain. Eng., 1344, 515520.
little subjectivity if one needs to sketch a smooth curve Theis, C. V. 1935. The relation between the lowering of the piezomet-
through few but sufficient number of selected points contain- ric surface and the rate and duration of discharge of a well using
ing the peak. Graphic software can be used to fit a polyno- groundwater storage. Trans., Am. Geophys. Union, 16, 519524.
mial of adequate degree through these points to reduce the Wikramaratna, R. S. 1985. A new type curve method for the analysis
subjectivity. Then the coordinates of the peak are determined. of pumping tests in large diameter wells. Water Resour. Res., 212,
A logarithmic time-axis is preferable. How to accurately read 261264.
the coordinates for a logarithmic scale is given by Singh
2008b. However, to approximately determine the peak and
time to peak of s2w / t on natural scale versus t on logarith-
mic scale curve in a completely objective manner, a triplet
Discussion of Flooding Probability
with the coordinates of points as x1 , t1, x1 , t1, and x1 , t1
containing the peak is selected and the following equations Constrained Optimal Design of Trapezoidal
are used: Channels by Amlan Das
January/February 2007, Vol. 133, No. 1, pp. 5360.
k1
t p = t1 + 1 DOI: 10.1061/ASCE0733-94372007133:153
2k2
Rajib Kumar Bhattacharjya, Aff.M.ASCE1; and
s2wp k21
= x1 + 2 M. G. Satish2
1
tp 4k1k2 Asst. Prof., Dept. of Civil Engineering, National Inst. of Technology,

Silchar 788010, Assam, India. E-mail: rajibkbc@gmail.com
2 2 2
t2 t3 Prof., Dept. of Civil and Resources Engineering, Dalhousie Univ., Hali-
k1 = x2 x1 ln x3 x1 ln 3 fax, NS, Canada B3J1Z1. E-mail: Mysore.Satish@dal.ca
t1 t1

k2 = x2 x1ln t2
t1
x3 x1ln
t3
t1
4 The author of the paper developed an optimization-based model
for optimal design of trapezoidal channel section incorporating

JOURNAL OF IRRIGATION AND DRAINAGE ENGINEERING ASCE / JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2009 / 129

Downloaded 21 Apr 2009 to 210.212.58.170. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright; see http://pubs.asce.org/copyright

Fig. 1. Feasible boundary and Pareto-optimal front for composite
roughness case
flooding probability as an additional constraint. The discussers
would like to comment on some related issues on the technical
paper that would help the readers to better understand the authors
work.
Figs. 2 and 3 of the technical paper show the tradeoff between
the total construction cost of a trapezoidal open channel and
flooding probability of the channel for composite and uniform
roughness scenario respectively. It can be observed that for both
scenarios, the total cost of the channel decreases to a minimum
value and then increases along with the increase in flooding prob-
ability value. Intuitively, the total cost of the channel should de-
crease along with the increases in flooding probability values and
should reach the minimum value at a deterministic optimum
channel section. And then it should maintain total cost of the
deterministic optimal channel section value with further increase
in flooding probability. The total cost of the channel reaches a
minimum at flooding probability equal to 0.3693 for the compos-
ite roughness case and at 0.3827 for the uniform roughness case.
The corresponding costs of the channel are 22.935 and 24.963 in
currency units respectively. For further increase in flooding prob-
ability value, the total cost of the channel should remain the same
at 22.935 for the composite roughness case and at 24.936 for the
uniform roughness case. However, these solutions will be domi-
Fig. 2. Feasible boundary and Pareto-optimal front for uniform
roughness case
130 / JOURNAL OF IRRIGATION AND DRAINAGE ENGINEERING ASCE / JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2009
Downloaded 21 Apr 2009 to 210.212.58.170. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright; see http://pubs.asce.org/copyright
nated solutions and will not find any position on the Pareto-
optimal front.
Eqs. 2527 of the technical paper constitute a multiple ob-
jective formulation as a tradeoff that exists between objective one
Eq. 25, i.e. minimization of channel cost, with objective two
Eq. 26, i.e., minimization of flooding probability. The author
used a classical optimization technique to generate the Pareto-
optimal solutions. Most of the classical methods transform the
multiple-objectives optimization problem into a single-objective
optimization problem, and then apply single-objective classical
optimization techniques to solve the transformed problem. This
type of classical optimization technique gives only one Pareto-
optimal solution at a time. The process is then repeated to gener-
ate other points on the Pareto-optimal front. There are several
methods available to convert a multiple-objectives problem into
single-objective problems. The author did not discuss in details
the method employed in his study for conversion of the multiple-
objectives problem into a single-objective problem. The
-constrained method can be used to convert the multiple-
objectives problem into a single-objective problem Deb 2001.
The transformed single-objective formulation in this case may be
written as:
Minimize J1 = c1A f + c2 P1f + c3 P2f + c4 P3f 1
Subject to Py y + f 2
Q A5/3
=0 3
So n3/2
i P i
2/3
For different values of , the single-objective optimization prob-
lem may be solved using classical optimization techniques. The
discussers solved the formulated optimization problem in Eqs.
13 for composite roughness and uniform roughness sce-
narios. The sequential quadratic programming routine available in
MATLAB is used to solve the single-objective optimization prob-
lem. The feasible boundary obtained by solving the optimization
problem is shown in Fig. 1 for composite roughness case and in
Fig. 2 for uniform roughness case. It can be observed that the
total cost of the channel decreases along with the increase in
flooding probability value. The total cost reaches the minimum
value at flooding probability equal to 0.3693 for composite rough-
ness case and at 0.3827 for uniform roughness case. With a fur-
ther increase in flooding probability value, the total construction
costs of the channel remain unchanged. However, the solutions
for a flooding probability value greater than 0.3693 for the com-
posite roughness case and 0.3827 for the uniform roughness case
are not the member of the Pareto-optimal front. The Pareto-
optimal solutions can be obtained using the non-dominating sort-
ing algorithm Deb 2001. The Pareto-optimal fronts are also
shown in Fig. 1 for a composite roughness case and in Fig. 2 for
a uniform roughness case.
Eqs. 14 and 15 of the technical paper are the simplified
form of Eqs.2 and 12 when n1 = n2 = n3. In this scenario, as per
the notation used in the technical paper, Eqs. 14 and 15 should
have been
SoA5/3 SoA5/3
Q= or Q= 4
n1P1 + P2 + P3 2/3
n1P2/3
or
5 dA
2 d
A dy P dy
P=
+
2
+
2
3 SQ2 Sn1 Sso
Sy Q2 n21 4S2o
1/2
References deterministic optimal-channel section value with further increase
in flooding probability. This statement of the discussers opposes
Deb, K. 2001. Multi-objective optimization using evolutionary algo- the existence of the flooding probability constraint in that region,
rithms, Wiley, New York. which is unacceptable. The results from the writer show that there
is no conflict between the two objectives, although flooding prob-
ability constrained optimal design is viable in the region.
Moreover, the discussers solution results contain incomplete
information that make it redundant and improper on the part of
Closure to Flooding Probability
the writer to give a closing comment on the particular issue of the
Constrained Optimal Design of Trapezoidal discussers.
Channels by Amlan Das Regarding methodology of conversion of the multiobjective
January/February 2007, Vol. 133, No. 1, pp. 5360. problem to a single-objective optimization problem, an average
DOI: 10.1061/ASCE0733-94372007133:153 reader of ASCE journal paper must access the references cited in
the paper to learn the methodology. Also, the methodology has
Amlan Das1 become a standard practice because of its wide use in research.
1
Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, National Institute of Technology, Therefore, the short description given in the writers original
Durgapur, Mahatma Grandhi Ave., West Bengal 713209, India.
paper suffices the need.
E-mail: adas_wrpm@yahoo.com
The discussers -constrained method and the writers con-
strained methods of conversion of the multiobjective problem to a
The discussers deserve an acknowledgment for taking interest in single-objective optimization problem are identical. They have
the writers work. The discussers interpretations of Pareto- identical drawbacks and advantages.
optimal solutions of Figs. 2 and 3 may mislead a common reader. Regarding Eqs. 3 and 4 from the discussers, the explana-
They stated that the total cost should maintain total cost of the tions given in the writers original work are self-explanatory.

JOURNAL OF IRRIGATION AND DRAINAGE ENGINEERING ASCE / JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2009 / 131

Downloaded 21 Apr 2009 to 210.212.58.170. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright; see http://pubs.asce.org/copyright