ISKRIT / engineering reference ← to reference

Hydraulic conductivity from a pumping test: Dupuit calculator and formulas

Updated: September 30, 2026 · ISKRIT

A pumping test measures what a laboratory permeameter cannot: the permeability of the aquifer as it actually lies, over the whole volume the well drains. The work-up is a pair of steady-state formulas that go back to Dupuit, and the whole method stands on the assumptions behind them.

Calculator

The two formulas

For a fully penetrating well pumped to steady state, with Q the discharge, R the radius of influence and r the well radius, the unconfined case is:

kf = Q · ln(R/r) / (π · (H² − h²))

where H is the initial saturated thickness and h = H − s is the thickness left at the well after a drawdown s. The confined case is:

kf = Q · ln(R/r) / (2π · m · s)

with m the thickness of the confined aquifer. Getting these two mixed up is the common error, because both take a discharge, a drawdown and a thickness, and only the unconfined one squares the thickness.

Why the unconfined formula squares the thickness

In a confined aquifer the flow section is fixed: the thickness m stays the same however far the head is drawn down, so the drawdown enters linearly. In an unconfined aquifer the water table itself is the top of the flow section, so the section shrinks towards the well and the transmissivity varies with radius. Integrating that gives a difference of squares. The two forms are related, since H² − h² = s · (2H − s): when the drawdown is small next to the thickness, the unconfined formula collapses to the confined one with m ≈ H, and the difference between them only becomes large when the aquifer is heavily dewatered.

Worked

Unconfined aquifer, Q = 500 m³/day, well radius r = 0.15 m, radius of influence R = 150 m, saturated thickness H = 12 m, drawdown at the well s = 3 m, so h = 9 m:

ln(R/r) = ln(1000) = 6.908
H² − h² = 144 − 81 = 63 m²
kf = 500 · 6.908 / (π · 63) = 17.4 m/day

The same well in a confined aquifer of thickness m = 8 m with the same drawdown:

kf = 500 · 6.908 / (2π · 8 · 3) = 22.9 m/day

The radius of influence

R is the distance at which drawdown has died out. It is measured, not calculated: observation wells around the pumped well show where the cone of depression flattens. Where there are no observation wells it is estimated by an empirical relation such as Sichardt's, which is awkward because that relation already contains the permeability being sought, so it has to be iterated.

The saving grace is that R enters as a logarithm. In the worked example, doubling R from 150 m to 300 m raises ln(R/r) from 6.908 to 7.601, that is kf from 17.4 to 19.2 m/day, about 10 percent. Halving it costs the same 10 percent the other way. A radius of influence that is out by a factor of two therefore moves the answer less than the scatter between two wells on the same site, and arguing about R is rarely the best use of the time.

The assumptions, and which way each error pushes

The formulas assume steady flow, a fully penetrating well, a homogeneous aquifer of constant thickness, and horizontal flow. Each violation has a direction:

Typical values

Orders of magnitude of hydraulic conductivity, as given in soil mechanics textbooks. The spread inside one soil type is wide, and a design value comes from a test on the site.

Soilk, cm/sk, m/day
Clean gravel1 to 100864 to 86,400
Coarse sand0.01 to 18.64 to 864
Fine sand0.001 to 0.010.864 to 8.64
Silty clay0.00001 to 0.0010.00864 to 0.864
Claybelow 0.000001below 0.000864

Terzaghi and Peck grade the degree of permeability by k in cm/s: high above 10⁻¹, medium from 10⁻³ to 10⁻¹, low from 10⁻⁵ to 10⁻³, very low from 10⁻⁷ to 10⁻⁵ and practically impermeable below 10⁻⁷. One m/day is 1.157·10⁻⁵ m/s or 1.157·10⁻³ cm/s, so to go from m/day to cm/s divide by 864.

Field test against laboratory permeameter

A falling head or constant head test measures one specimen a hundred millimetres across, in the direction the specimen sits in the cell, usually vertical, and only where the sample survived transport intact. A pumping test measures a horizontal permeability averaged over the metres of aquifer the well drains, fissures, sand partings and all. In layered ground the field value is routinely higher, often by an order of magnitude, and that is not a discrepancy to be reconciled: they are answers to different questions. Dewatering and inflow calculations want the field number.

Questions

Can a pumping test result be used for a settlement calculation? Not directly, since it gives permeability rather than stiffness, though it does set the drainage path and therefore the rate at which consolidation settlement occurs.

How do you calculate hydraulic conductivity from a pumping test? Pump at a constant discharge until the drawdown stops changing, then put the discharge, the drawdown, the aquifer thickness, the well radius and the radius of influence into the Dupuit formula for an unconfined or a confined aquifer. The result is in the units of discharge per area, usually m/day.

Is hydraulic conductivity the same as permeability? In geotechnical practice the coefficient of permeability k and the hydraulic conductivity are the same quantity, with units of velocity. Intrinsic permeability, in m² or darcy, belongs to the pore space alone, and hydraulic conductivity equals it multiplied by the unit weight of water and divided by its viscosity.

What is a typical hydraulic conductivity of sand? Fine sand is around 0.001 to 0.01 cm/s, roughly 0.9 to 9 m/day, and coarse sand 0.01 to 1 cm/s. Silt and clay fines lower it by orders of magnitude.

Does the well have to be pumped at a constant rate? Yes, for this work-up, because steady state means a constant discharge with the drawdown no longer changing. A test with a stepped discharge is worked up step by step and each step is checked for stabilisation on its own.

Enter the discharge, the drawdown and the geometry and get kf in metres per day, with the substituted values shown, in the pumping test permeability calculator, part of the field testing tool.

More in the reference:
Measurement uncertainty calculator: GUM budget with Type A, Type B and expanded U
Area from coordinates calculator: shoelace formula for survey plots
Bearing and distance from coordinates: survey inverse calculator
Rotating shift patterns: covering the posts and balancing the hours
Calibration intervals: setting them, shortening them, defending them
Turning an estimate into a bill of quantities that foots
Progress billing: percent complete, carry-forward and retention
Checking claimed quantities: the design schedule and the survey
Pile capacity from CPT: how the LCPC method reads a cone trace
Driven and bored piles: why the same soil gives different capacity
What belongs on a borehole log, and what quietly gets left off
Drawing a cross section: correlating layers between boreholes
From an AGS4 file to a laboratory summary: what the groups carry
Characteristic values: turning a set of test results into one number
Void ratio, porosity and saturation from one density test
When one soil layer is really two: splitting geotechnical units
ASTM D4254 minimum index density: procedure and Dr calculator
Relative density Dr and density index Id are not the same number
USCS classification step by step: ASTM D2487
Cu and Cc: what the two gradation coefficients actually tell you
Dual symbols in USCS: the 5 to 12 percent fines band
EN ISO 14688-1 against USCS: two different size ladders
AGS4 file validation: what the rules actually check
AGS4 syntax: the five rules that break a delivery
ASTM D2435 oedometer test: from the curve to Cc, mv and Eoed
Converting oedometer modulus to Young’s modulus
EN ISO 17892-5 and ASTM D2435: where the two diverge
ASTM D1196 plate load test: modulus and subgrade reaction
DIN 18134: Ev1, Ev2 and the compaction ratio
Ménard pressuremeter modulus: ASTM D4719 and EN ISO 22476-4
Shewhart control chart constants: A2, A3, B3, B4, D3, D4, d2, c4
The eight out of control tests on a Shewhart chart
Repeatability and reproducibility limits: where 2.77 comes from
How rebar cutting plans are optimised: the cutting stock problem
Cutting waste in rebar fabrication: what percentage is normal
Rebound hammer calibration: why the factory curve is not enough
Kerf and offcut: what a linear cutting plan has to account for
Earthwork volume from survey points: grid, TIN and cross sections
Fire load density: the formula, the calorific values and the traps
Explosive atmosphere zones 0, 1, 2 and 20, 21, 22 explained
Pollution charges per tonne: how the over-limit multiplier works
The Russian environmental fee: who pays, when, and how the advances work