Nineteenth International Water Technology Conference, IWTC19 Sharm ElSheikh, 21-23 April 2016

EVALUATION AND MODIFICATION OF SOME EQUATIONS USED IN

DESIGN OF SUBSURFACE DRAINAGE SYSTEMS

Yousef S.M1, Ghaith M.A.2, Abdel Ghany M.B3. Soliman K.M4

1
Director, Regional Center for Training and Water Studies, MWRI
2
Assistant Professor, Cairo University, Faculty of Engineering, Dept. of Irrigation & Hydraulics
3
Professor, National Water Research Center
4
Professor of Irrigation & Drainage, Cairo University, Faculty of Engineering, Dept. of
Irrigation & Hydraulics

ABSTRACT

This research evaluates some unsteady state equations that are used in designing subsurface
drainage systems and conducts some modifications to match the conditions in Delta Region.Three
unsteady state equations that selected for this study are: Glover and Dumm – Hamad - Luthien.

Mashtool Pilot Area (MPA) in Delta Region was selected to be the case study of this research. To
make the evaluation, hydraulic head above drain (ht) was collected for three wells (h1, h2, and
h3) located in Unit (1) at MPA. These three wells had been constructed in 1980. These data were
during year 1987 (i.e. seven years only after construction) to be ideal enough for evaluating the
equations and making some modifications in these equations to fit theconditions in Egypt. The
ideal values for drawdowncurves that were conducted by previous studies were used to make the
validation of these modifications.

Keywords: Subsurface Drainage Systems, Mashtul Pilot Area, Unsteady State Equations,Glover
and Dummy, Hamad, Luthien

1. INTRODUCTION
Land drainage is the removal of excess surface and subsurface water including the removable
of soluble salts from root zone, to enhance soil aeration and soil temperature and as a result
enhance crop growth and maintain the soil productivity (ICID 1978). A surface drainage system
is applied when the waterlogging occurs on the soil surface, whereas a subsurface drainage
system is applied when the waterlogging occurs in the soil Abd-eldayem, 1998.

Nijland et al., 2005mentioned that theadvantages of subsurface drainage system are: (1) it can
effectively solve the drainage problems at relatively moderate costs with a minimum interference
to agricultural practices and existing infrastructure, (2) its maintenance is less problematical than
maintenance of other forms of drainage, and (3) it increases land area used for agriculture (it
saves about 5% of land). Other important advantagethat can be added is using subsurface
drainage systems conserves water from contamination so that it can be reused safely and protect
environment from negative impact caused by using surface drainage systems.

For the above advantages, Egypt is implementing subsurface drainage systems in large areas
of agricultural lands. The Egyptian Public Authority for Drainage Projects (EPADP) is not only
heavily engaged in the construction of new drainage systems but has also become responsible for
the drainage system management and rehabilitation for a large area. Consequently, (EPADP) is
interested in the economic viability of establishing these drainage systems (Abdel-Dayem, 1973).

208
Nineteenth International Water Technology Conference, IWTC19 Sharm ElSheikh, 21-23 April 2016

Mashtul Pilot Area (MPA), which has been supplied with subsurface drainage system since
1980 in southeastern part of the Nile Delta, was selected to be the case study of this research as it
is an old area with alluvial soil (Rashad, 2003) and it can be considered a representative area for
Delta Region.

Determining space between laterals is conducted by using two theories: (i) the steady state
theory that based on the assumption that the rate of recharge to the groundwater is uniform and
steady and that it equals to the discharge through the drainage system. Thus, the water table
remains at the same height as long as the recharge continues, (ii)the un-steady state theory,
whichbased on, the movement of water table through the soil is a transient condition and the
hydraulic head at any point in the soil is not a constant and changes with time.The un-steady state
concept is more realistic than the steady state one. Consequently, this research selected three
unsteady state equations to be evaluated and modified to reach more accurate solutions according
to conditions in Egypt.

Three unsteady state equations,whichare selected for this study,are Glover and Dumm –
Hamad - Luthien. Each equation has its own assumptions and has its own variables.
Microsoft excel was used for fitting data with the equations for making some modifications in the
constants of these equations. These modifications were done to fit data collected from three wells
(h1, h2, and h3) located in Unit (1) at MPAforyear 1987. Validation of these modifications were
conducted to fit ideal values of htaccording to Eissa et al. 1996 & Eissa, 2001that are
illustrated in table (1).

The average values to describe the soil characteristics at Unit (1) at MPA were as follow:
Soil hydraulic conductivity (k) = 0.027 m/d
The corresponding value of drainable porosity (f) = 0.011 (calculated by using Subsurface
Drainage Design Program(SDDP) compensating with values of the ideal irrigation cycles
for drain depth equales1.2 m(Rashad, 2003).
The distance between the axe of laterals and the impermeable layer (D) = 5 m.
The following parameters are the design criteria of the laterals in the area:
The distance between laterals (L) = 15 m
The radius of laterals (ro) = 0.04 m
Depth of drains from ground surface = 1.2 m
Hydraulic head (after six days) = 0.3 m
The equivalent depth (de) can be taken = 1.5 m (by compensation in Glover-Dumm’s
equation with the previous data)

2. METHODOLOGY

For achieving the objectives of this research, the following research tasks have been
undertaken:
1- Three unsteady state equations were selected to be evaluated(Glover and Dumm – Hamad
– Luthien)
2- Data for three drains during 1987 (seven years after construction) were collected to be
ideal enough for evaluating these equations and making some modifications.

209
Nineteenth International Water Technology Conference, IWTC19 Sharm ElSheikh, 21-23 April 2016

3- Some models by excel program were created to fit the original equations withthe data
collectedthen modifications in some constants of these equations were proposed.
4- Data of ideal irrigation cycles in Delta region, which have been concluded in previous
studies, were used for validation of the modificationsthathad been conducted.

3. GLOVER DUMM’S EQUATION

Under unsteady state condition Dumm, 1954 introduced a formula proposed by Glover. This
formula is based on the solution of heat flow equation. In his solution Dumm considered the
initial water table as a forth degree parabola instead of the assumption of a flat one.Dumm, 1954
used the differential to describe the fall of the water table. His solution, which is based on a
formula developed by Glover, describes the lowering of an initially horizontal watertable as a
function of time, place, drain spacing, and soil prosperities.
Assumptions of Glover and Dum equation are: irrigation is inregular intervals, soil is uniform,
and movement of water in soil is directly proportional to hydraulic gradient.
The final equation given by Glover-Dumm can be written as follow:
1
 
L2 2  K de t  ln 4ho 
 f   ht 
Where, ht = height of watertable midway between laterals at time t (m);h o = initial height of the
watertable midway between laterals;k = hydraulic conductivity (m/day);de = equivalent depth of
the soil layer below drain level (m);f= drainable porosity (dimensionless);L = drain spacing (m);
and t = time after instantaneous rise of water table(day). Figure (1) illustrates these parameters.…
…
Soil surface

y Water table as fourth

degree parabola
ho y
ht x
S
d
Impermeable layer
Figure (1) Geometry of drainage system (as assumed by Dumm)

210
Nineteenth International Water Technology Conference, IWTC19 Sharm ElSheikh, 21-23 April 2016

Table (1) Different parameters of the Watertable Draw Down Curve

Hydraulic head above drain level (m) Hydraulic head above drain level (m) Hydraulic head above drain level (m)
(for drain depth 1.2 m &ideal Hyd. (for drain depth 1.4 m &ideal Hyd. (for drain depth 1.7m &ideal Hyd.
Days after Head 0.3m) Head 0.4m) Head 0.8m)
Irrigation
Upper lower Upper lower Upper lower
Average average average
boundary boundary boundary boundary boundary boundary
1 0.85 1.05 0.63 1.05 1.26 0.87 1.26 1.45 1.11
2 0.69 0.87 0.50 0.88 1.07 0.67 1.15 1.32 1.00
3 0.56 0.73 0.40 0.73 0.91 0.52 1.05 1.21 0.90
4 0.45 0.61 0.32 0.58 0.78 0.40 0.96 1.11 0.81
5 0.37 0.51 0.25 0.48 0.66 0.31 0.88 1.02 0.74
6* 0.30 0.43 0.20 0.39 0.57 0.24 0.80 0.93 0.67
7 0.24 0.36 0.16 0.31 0.48 0.18 0.73 0.86 0.61
8 0.20 0.30 0.13 0.28 0.41 0.14 0.67 0.79 0.56

211
Nineteenth International Water Technology Conference, IWTC19 Sharm ElSheikh, 21-23 April 2016

3.1. Evaluation of Glover-Dumm’s equation

The above equation can be written in other form to get (ht) as a function in (t):

 4 
ht  ho  e fL
kd  2t
( e 2 )
 
This equation was used for fitting data of year 1987 and getting the accuracy of it. To conduct this
study, it was necessary to make some changes in one of theconstants.Thisconstantwasselected to
bethe power for non-dimensional item in the equation. As a result, the equation can be written as
follow:

 4 
ht  ho  e fL
( kde2 t )
c

 
Where (C)isa constant to be checked to get the accuracy of the equation. The ideal values of draw
down curves in year 1987 were used for checking the equation by using the Excel program. The
average value of (C) that achieved the minimum error of this fitting was shown in figure (2).

0.8

0.6
error

0.4

0.2

0
2

4
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.7
2.8
2.9

3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
3.7
3.8
3.9

4.1

C1 (Glover)

Figure (2) Average value of C in Glover Dumm’s equation according to some ideal irrigation cycles
in year 1987

3.2. Validation of the results

The ideal values of draw down curvesaccording totable (1) used to conclude values of (C).
Figures from (3) to (5)show the different values of (C). The values of (C)that gave the minimum
error from these curves are 2.3, 2.3, 2.2, 2.2, 2.4, 2.1, 2.3, 2.4 and 2.3 with average value of 2.28.
This result is approximately equal to the result that shown in figure (2).

212
Nineteenth International Water Technology Conference, IWTC19 Sharm ElSheikh, 21-23 April 2016

1
0.8
0.6

error
0.4
0.2
0

C1

4
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.7
2.8
2.9

3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
3.7
3.8
3.9

4.1
C1

The value of C according to ideal values of DDC

0.8

0.6
error

0.4

0.2

0
C1

4
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.7
2.8
2.9

3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
3.7
3.8
3.9

4.1
C1

The value of C according to lower boundary values of DDC

0.8
0.6
error

0.4
0.2

0
C1

4
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.7
2.8
2.9

3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
3.7
3.8
3.9

4.1

C1

The value of C according to upper boundary values of DDC

Figure (3) The values of Cin Glover Dumm’s equation in case of d.d=1.2m

0.8

0.6
error

0.4

0.2

0
C1

4
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.7
2.8
2.9

3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
3.7
3.8
3.9

4.1

C1

The value of C according to ideal values of DDC

213
Nineteenth International Water Technology Conference, IWTC19 Sharm ElSheikh, 21-23 April 2016

0.8

0.6

error
0.4

0.2

C1

4
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.7
2.8
2.9

3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
3.7
3.8
3.9

4.1
C1

The value of C according to lower boundary values of DDC

0.8

0.6
error

0.4

0.2

0
C1

4
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.7
2.8
2.9

3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
3.7
3.8
3.9

4.1
C1

The value of C according to upper boundary values of DDC

Figure (4) The values of C in Glover Dumm’s equation in case of d.d=1.4m

0.8

0.6
error

0.4

0.2

0
C1

4
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.7
2.8
2.9

3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
3.7
3.8
3.9

4.1

C1

The value of C according to ideal values of DDC

0.8

0.6
error

0.4

0.2

0
C1

4
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.7
2.8
2.9

3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
3.7
3.8
3.9

4.1

C1

The value of C according to lower boundary values of DDC

214
Nineteenth International Water Technology Conference, IWTC19 Sharm ElSheikh, 21-23 April 2016

0.8

0.6

error
0.4

0.2

C1

4
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.7
2.8
2.9

3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
3.7
3.8
3.9

4.1
C1

The value of C according to upper boundary values of DDC

Figure (5) The values of C in Glover Dumm’s equation in case of d.d=1.7m

3.3.The difference in calculating space between laterals by using Glover

Dumm’s equation

From section 3.2,C= 2.28 was chosen for modifying Glover Dumm’s equation to fit conditions in
Egypt and to avoid over design. As a result, the modified equation can be written as follow:
1
 K de t   4ho 
L 
2 2.28
 f  ln ht 
The space between laterals was calculated by usingboth theoriginal and the modifiedGlover
Dumm’s equation and recorded in table (2).The difference was also calculated by the following
equation and recorded in the same table.
 
(e)   L2 L1 X100
difference
 L2 
Where,L1= space between laterals calculated by the original equationandL2= space between
laterals calculated by the modified equation

Table (2)Difference incalculating space between lateralsby using Glover Dumm’s equation
d.d =1.2 d.d =1.4 d.d =1.7
L.B IDD U.B L.B IDD U.B L.B IDD U.B
L1 12.63 13.1 13.9 11.8 13.6 14.6 17.7 18.24 18.5
8 2 5 4 2 5
L2 14.84 15.4 16.3 13.9 16 17.1 20.8 21.42 21.7
1 1 3 2
Difference(℅) 14.8 14.8 14.8 14.8 14.8 14.8 14.8 14.8 14.8

; LB: Lower Boundary, IDD: Ideal Draw Down, UB: Upper Boundary

Table (2) illustrates that the difference = 14.8 ℅and the space between laterals calculated by the
original equation is less thanthe space between laterals calculated by the modified equation.
Consequently, the original equation results in over design and the modified one is economic for
design.

215
Nineteenth International Water Technology Conference, IWTC19 Sharm ElSheikh, 21-23 April 2016

4. LUTHIEN’S EQUATION
Under unsteady state condition Luthien, 1949 introduced formula for calculating the space
between laterals. In his solution,Luthienconsidered the initial watertable as an ellipse instead of
the assumption of a flat one.
The final equation given by Luthienwas as follow:

 4 C Kt  
L  

 f ln( h ) 
ho

 t 
Where, h t = height of the water table midway between laterals at time t (m);h o = initial height of
the water table midway between laterals at t = 0 (m);k = hydraulic conductivity (m/day); f=
drainable porosity (dimensionless); L = drain spacing (m);t = time after instantaneous rise of
water table(day) and C = constant depends on soil type (C = 0.1 for k = 0.025 m/day)

4.1. Evaluation of Luthien’sequation

The above equation can be written in other form to get (ht) as a function in (t):

ht  ho e
4c k t
( )
f L

Where C is a constant to be checked to get the accuracy of the equation. The ideal values of draw
down curves in year 1987 were used for checking the equation by using the Excel program. The
average value of C, which achieved the minimum error of this fitting, was shown in figure
(6)which illustrates that (C) equal to (0.225).

0.25

0.2

0.15
error

0.1

0.05

0
0.1

0.2

0.3
0.11
0.12
0.13
0.14
0.15
0.16
0.17
0.18
0.19

0.21
0.22
0.23
0.24
0.25
0.26
0.27
0.28
0.29

0.31

C (Luthien)

Figure (6) Average value of C in Luthien’s equation according to some ideal irrigation cycles in year
1987

4.2. Validation of the results

The ideal values of draw down curvesaccording totable (1) were used to conclude values of C.
Figures from (7) to (9)show the different values of C. The values of C, which gave the minimum
error from these curves, were 0.23, 0.25, 0.2, 0.215, 0.28, 0.18, 0.19, 0.21 and 0.185 with average
value of 0.214. This result is approximately equal to the result that is shown in figure (6).

216
Nineteenth International Water Technology Conference, IWTC19 Sharm ElSheikh, 21-23 April 2016

0.25

0.2

0.15

error
0.1

0.05

C1
0.1

0.2

0.3
0.11
0.12
0.13
0.14
0.15
0.16
0.17
0.18
0.19

0.21
0.22
0.23
0.24
0.25
0.26
0.27
0.28
0.29

0.31
C

The value of Caccording to ideal values of DDC

0.25

0.2

0.15
error

0.1

0.05

0
C1
0.1

0.2

0.3
0.11
0.12
0.13
0.14
0.15
0.16
0.17
0.18
0.19

0.21
0.22
0.23
0.24
0.25
0.26
0.27
0.28
0.29

0.31
C

The value of Caccording to lower boundary values of DDC

0.25

0.2

0.15
error

0.1

0.05

0
C1
0.1

0.2

0.3
0.11
0.12
0.13
0.14
0.15
0.16
0.17
0.18
0.19

0.21
0.22
0.23
0.24
0.25
0.26
0.27
0.28
0.29

0.31

The value of Caccording to upper boundary values of DDC

Figure (7) The values of C in Luthien equation in case of d.d=1.2m

0.25

0.2

0.15
error

0.1

0.05

0
C1
0.1

0.2

0.3
0.11
0.12
0.13
0.14
0.15
0.16
0.17
0.18
0.19

0.21
0.22
0.23
0.24
0.25
0.26
0.27
0.28
0.29

0.31

The value of Caccording to ideal values of DDC

217
Nineteenth International Water Technology Conference, IWTC19 Sharm ElSheikh, 21-23 April 2016

0.25

0.2

0.15

error
0.1

0.05

C1
0.1

0.2

0.3
0.11
0.12
0.13
0.14
0.15
0.16
0.17
0.18
0.19

0.21
0.22
0.23
0.24
0.25
0.26
0.27
0.28
0.29

0.31
C

The value of Caccordingto lower boundary values of DDC

0.25

0.2

0.15
error

0.1

0.05

0
C1
0.1

0.2

0.3
0.11
0.12
0.13
0.14
0.15
0.16
0.17
0.18
0.19

0.21
0.22
0.23
0.24
0.25
0.26
0.27
0.28
0.29

0.31
C

The value of C according to upper boundary values of DDC

Figure (8) The values of C in Luthien equationin case of d.d=1.4m

0.25

0.2

0.15
error

0.1

0.05

0
C1
0.1

0.2

0.3
0.11
0.12
0.13
0.14
0.15
0.16
0.17
0.18
0.19

0.21
0.22
0.23
0.24
0.25
0.26
0.27
0.28
0.29

0.31

The value of C according to ideal values of DDC

0.25

0.2

0.15
error

0.1

0.05

0
C1
0.1

0.2

0.3
0.11
0.12
0.13
0.14
0.15
0.16
0.17
0.18
0.19

0.21
0.22
0.23
0.24
0.25
0.26
0.27
0.28
0.29

0.31

The value of Caccording to lower boundary values of DDC

218
Nineteenth International Water Technology Conference, IWTC19 Sharm ElSheikh, 21-23 April 2016

0.25

0.2

0.15

error
0.1

0.05

C1

0.1

0.2

0.3
0.11
0.12
0.13
0.14
0.15
0.16
0.17
0.18
0.19

0.21
0.22
0.23
0.24
0.25
0.26
0.27
0.28
0.29

0.31
C

The value of C according to upper boundary values of DDC

Figure (9) The values of C in Luthien equation in case of d.d=1.7m

4.3. The difference in calculating space between laterals by using Luthien’s

equation

From section 4.2, C= 0.214. Then, the modified Luthien’s equation will be as follow:

 4 x0.214K t 
L  

 f ln(ho h ) 

 t 
While the original one is:

 4 x0.1 K t 

L  

 f ln( h ) 
ho

 t 
The space between laterals was calculated by usingboth theoriginal and the
modifiedLuthien’sequation and recorded in table (3).The difference also calculated by the
following equation and recorded in the same table.
 
(e)   L2 L1 X100
difference
 L2 
Where, L1= space between laterals calculated by the original equationand L2= space between
laterals calculated by the modified equation

Table (3)Difference incalculating space between lateralsby using Luthien equation

d.d =1.2 d.d =1.4 d.d =1.7

L.B IDD U.B L.B IDD U.B L.B IDD U.B
L1 4.974 5.42 6.26 4.29 5.93 6.992 11.47 12.4 12.92
5 6 7 9 4 3 6
L2 10.64 11.6 13.4 9.19 12.7 14.96 24.55 26.6 27.66
5 1 1 6 1 3 5 4
Difference(℅) 53.27 53.2 53.2 53.2 53.2 53.27 53.27 53.2 53.27
7 7 7 7 7

LB: Lower Boundary, IDD: Ideal Draw Down, UB: Upper Boundary

219
Nineteenth International Water Technology Conference, IWTC19 Sharm ElSheikh, 21-23 April 2016

Table (3) illustrates that the difference = 53.27 ℅ which is a very high percentage and the space
between laterals calculated by the original equation is less thanthe space between laterals
calculated by the modified equation. Consequently, the original equation results in over design
and the modified one is economic for design. It is also very worthy mentioning that the values of
the space between laterals calculated by the original equation are very small, costly and
unreasonable. It is also obvious that the variation in the value of (C) causes large variation in the
value of (L). Then, it is very important to determine this constant for different types of soil in
high accuracy.

5. HAMAD’S EQUATION
This equation was chosen in this study to represent the Egyptian contribution in the field of the
design of subsurface drainage systems.Hamad, 1994mentionedthatunder unsteady state
condition, he introduced a formula for calculating the space between laterals in 1962. In his
solution he considered the initial watertable as a flat level that tends to decrease at the summit of
laterals (i.e. there is hydraulic head at lateral summit). Hamad also used the radius of the lateral
to be one of the variables in his formula.
The final equation given by Hamadwas as follow:

 

L  2  K t 


ho ) ln(L 

f ln( ht  ro 
)

Where, ht = height of water table midway between laterals at time t (m);h o = initial height of
water table midway between laterals;K = hydraulic conductivity over (m/day);f= drainable
porosity (dimensionless); L = drain spacing (m);t= time after instantaneous rise of water
table(day) and ro = radius of lateral (m)

5.1. Evaluation of Hamad’sequation

The above equation can be written in other form to get (ht) as a function in (t):
2kt
ht  ho e (
f L ln(L
 ro
)
)

This equation was used for fitting data of year 1987 and getting the accuracy of it. To conduct this
study, it was necessary to make some changes in one of theconstants.This constant was selected
to be as power for a non-dimensional item in the equation. As a result, the equation can be written
as follow:

ht ho e ( 2 c k t )
f L ln(L )
 ro
Where C is a constant to be checked to get the accuracy of the equation. The ideal values of draw
down curves in year 1987 were used for checking the equation by using Excel program. The
average value of C thatachieved the minimum error of this fitting was shown in figure (10).This
figure illustrates that the constant C = 0.68.

220
Nineteenth International Water Technology Conference, IWTC19 Sharm ElSheikh, 21-23 April 2016

0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4

error
0.3
0.2
0.1
0

1
0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.1
C1 (Hamad)

Figure (10) Average value of C in Hamad equation according to some ideal irrigation cycles in year
1987

5.2. Validation of the results

The ideal values of draw down curvesaccording totable (1) were used to conclude values of C.
Figures from (11) to (13)show the different values of C. The values of Cthatgave the minimum
error from these curves were 0.7, 0.75, 0.6, 0.6, 0.85, 0.5, 0.5, 0.6 and 0.5 with average value of
0.622.This result is approximately equal to the result thatshown in figure (10).
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
error

0.3
0.2
0.1
0
1

2
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9

1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.9 c1

The value of Caccording to ideal values of DDC

0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
error

0.3
0.2
0.1
0
1

2
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9

1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.9

c1

The value of Caccording to lower boundary values of DDC

0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
error

0.3
0.2
0.1
0
1

2
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9

1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.9

c1

The value of Caccording to upper boundary values of DDC

Figure (11) The values of C in Hamad equation in case of d.d=1.2m

221
Nineteenth International Water Technology Conference, IWTC19 Sharm ElSheikh, 21-23 April 2016

0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4

error
0.3
0.2
0.1
0

2
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9

1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.9
c1

The value of Caccording to ideal values of DDC

0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
error

0.3
0.2
0.1
0
1

2
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9

1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.9
c1

The value of Caccording to lower boundary values of DDC

0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
error

0.3
0.2
0.1
0
1

2
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9

1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.9

c1

The value of Caccording to upper boundary values of DDC

Figure (12) The values of C in Hamad’s equation in case of d.d=1.4m

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4
error

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
1

2
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9

1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.9

c1

The value of Caccording to ideally values of DDC

222
Nineteenth International Water Technology Conference, IWTC19 Sharm ElSheikh, 21-23 April 2016

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

error
0.3

0.2

0.1

2
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9

1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.9
c1

The value of Caccording tolower boundary values of DDC

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4
error

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
1

2
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9

1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.9
c1

The value of Caccording to upper boundary values of DDC

Figure (13) The values of C in Hamad’s equation in case of d.d=1.7m

5.3. The difference in calculating space between laterals by using Hamad’s equation
From section 5.2, C= 0.622. Then, the modified Hamad’sequation will be as follow:


 

L  2  0.622
K t 


ho ) ln(L 

f ln( ht  ro 
)

While the original one is:


 

L  2  K t 

 f ln(ho h ) ln(L r ) 

 t o 

The space between laterals is calculated by usingboth theoriginal and the modifiedHamad’s
equation and recorded in table (4).The difference also calculated by the following equation and
recorded in the same table.
 
(e)   L2 L1 X100
difference
 L2 

223
Nineteenth International Water Technology Conference, IWTC19 Sharm ElSheikh, 21-23 April 2016

Where, L1= space between laterals calculated by the original equationandL2= space between
laterals calculated by the modified equation
Table (4) Difference incalculating space between lateralsby using Hamad’s equation
d.d =1.2 d.d =1.4 d.d =1.7
L.B IDD U.B L.B IDD U.B L.B IDD U.B
L1 16.1 17.3 19.5 14.25 18.65 18.6 20.5 21 21.65
L2 11.25 12.1 13.65 10 13.05 13 14.3 14.65 15.15
Difference(℅) -43.1 - -42.9 -42.5 -42.9 - - -43.3 -42.9
42.9 43.1 43.4
LB: Lower Boundary, IDD: Ideal Draw Down, UB: Upper Boundary

Table (4) illustrates that the average difference = - 43 % and the most values ofspace between
laterals calculated by the original equation are not safe because they are more than the applied
space in the area (L =15 m). On the other hand, they are more thanthe space between laterals
calculated by the modified equation(that is the reason of the negative signof the error). As a
result, it can be said thatthe original equation results in poor design and the modified equation
results insafer solution.

6. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

In this research,three unsteady state equations,which are used in designing the subsurface
drainage systems,were selected to be evaluated.These equations were Glover- Dumm’s equation,
Hamad’sequation and Luthien’sequation. The study resulted in some modifications in constants
of both Glover-Dumm and Luthien’sequations to reach more economic results that
matchtheconditions in Egypt. On the contrary, it stated some modifications in the constant of
Hamad’sequation to reach safer results. Then, it can be said that before modification, both
Glover-Dumm and Luthien’sequations result in over design but Hamad’s equationresults in poor
design.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The authors would like to express their sincere gratitude to Prof.Dr. Mohamed Bakr
Abdelghany, Egyptian Public Authority for Drainage Projects, Ministry of Water
Resources and Irrigationand to Eng. Khaled Roshdy Ibrahim, Training Sector for Water
Resources and Irrigation, Ministry of Water Resources and Irrigation, who provided us
with very valuable information and data which helps in achieving this work. Their
valuable inputs have significantly contributed to a greatly improved final product.

REFERENCES

Abdel-Dayem, M.S., 1973.Effective Methods for Drainage in the Delta Area of Egypt,
unpublished thesis for Ms C., Ain-Shams University, Cairo, Egypt.

224
Nineteenth International Water Technology Conference, IWTC19 Sharm ElSheikh, 21-23 April 2016

Abdel-Dayem, M.S., 1998.Development of Land Drainage in Egypt, Drainage Research

Institute, Giza, Egypt.

Eissa, M., P.J. Hoogenboom, M. Abdel Ghany, and A.W. Tahun. 1996.Determination of Q-H
relations of field drains under Egyptian conditions. Proceedings Workshop on the
Evaluation of Performance of Subsurface Drainage Systems 16th ICID Congress, Cairo,
Egypt.

Eissa, M., 2001. Application of Water Table Draw Down Curve for the performance assessment
of drainage systems in some pilot areas in Egypt, Drainage Research Institute (DRI), Cairo,
Egypt.

Dumm, L.D., 1954.Drain Spacing Formula Agricultural Engineering .35, pp. 726-730.

Hammad, H.Y., 1994. Design of Tile Drainage for Arid Regions, journal of irrigation and
drainage division, proceeding of A.S.C.E., vol. 90.

ICID, 1978. Standards for the Calculation of Irrigation Efficiencies. ICID Bulletin2791– 101.

Luthin, J. H., and D. Kirkham , 1949.A Piezometer Method for Measuring Permeability of Soil
in Situ below a Water Table .Soil Sci. 68:349-358.

Nijland, H.J., F.W. Croon and H.P. Ritzema, 2005. Subsurface Drainage Practices: Guidelines
for the Implementation, Operation, and Maintenance of Subsurface Pipe Drainage Systems.
Wageningen, Alterra, ILRI Publication no. pp.608.

Rashad et al., 2003.Development of Hydrophysical Parameters for The Design of Drainage

System in Egypt, Unpublished thesis of M.Sc.,Ain Shams University,Cairo, Egypt.

225