Document Type : Research Paper

Abstract

An appropriate method to determine the hydraulic conductivity above water table is Guelph Permeameter. Using this method, experiments can be carried out by one person in a short period. Several investigators have commented on the systematic difference between the hydraulic conductivity obtained by Guelph Permeameter and Shallow Well Pumping Test (SWPT) methods. Therefore, the purpose of this research was to find a relationship between these two methods. In this study, to determine soil saturated hydraulic conductivity with Guelph Permeameter, Guelph Permeameter test was carried out in 5 agricultural regions of Khuzestan province and calibration of Guelph data was carried out with SWPT. In each region, Guelph Permeametertests were conducted in 40 holes with 60 cm depth, under two (5 and 10 cm) constant heads in each hole. Five holes with 1m depth were dug to carry out the SWPT in all regions mentioned above. In each region, the number of holes with negative results and the ones with significant results for K_fs and  in Guelph Permeameter were identified. Using Laplace single head analysis with zero capillary, single head analysis of Richards with α^* = 12 and single head regression based on Richards analysis were used to remove non-logical results of Guelph Permeameter device. It was observed that the geometric mean of regression based on Richards and double head analysis were equal. Coefficients related to this analysis were determined using least squares, and mean of α^* = 12 became equal to the primary hypothesis at a significance level of 95 %. In addition, because the standard deviation of α^* in Guelph tests was high, it was better to consider it constant. It is concluded that in regions with average soil texture, hydraulic conductivity value obtained in shallow well pumping method was 4-5 times more than the hydraulic conductivity measured by Guelph method, while in regions with heavy soil texture, value of the hydraulic conductivity measured by shallow well pumping method was 2-3.5 times more than the hydraulic conductivity determined by Guelph method.