Loading…

Characteristics of hydrogeological aquifer in potential lime stone by analysis pumping test in Campurdarat District, Tulungagung Regency, Indonesia

Extraction of clean water from dug wells and drilled wells is a source of water that is obtained locally without buying, for example, clean water from the Drinking Water Company (PAM). Surface water and groundwater are generally used frequently, even though the utilization of groundwater is not opti...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:IOP conference series. Earth and environmental science 2024-03, Vol.1311 (1), p.12051
Main Authors: Chandrasasi, D, Prasetyorini, L, Yuliani, E
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Extraction of clean water from dug wells and drilled wells is a source of water that is obtained locally without buying, for example, clean water from the Drinking Water Company (PAM). Surface water and groundwater are generally used frequently, even though the utilization of groundwater is not optimal compared to surface water. One way to determine the potential of groundwater contained by aquifers or aquifer discharge is by pumping test wells. In this test, water is pumped to the surface through a test well dug into the designated aquifer. The purpose of this study is to determine the characteristics of hydrogeological aquifer of limestone by the pumping test analysis approach using the Theis and Cooper - Jacob methods in Campurdarat District, Tulungagung Regency. Pumping tests have been carried out on two observation and production wells with the results of the Theis method showing a transmissivity (T) of 73,193 m 2 /day, storage capacity (S) of 1,080Ă—10 -3 and hydraulic conductivity (K) of 1,220 m/day while Jacob shows a transmissivity (T) value of 71,682 m 2 /day, storage capacity (S) of 0.4512 and hydraulic conductivity (K) of 4,667 m/day. The Theis method was chosen because it has a relative error smaller than Jacob method, namely 29.77%.
ISSN:1755-1307
1755-1315
DOI:10.1088/1755-1315/1311/1/012051