Applications of Microsoft Excel Solver Function in Water Resource Engineering

1a
Xing Fang, 1bShoudong Jiang, 1bKumar Raut, 1bJinwei Qiu

Abstract
Water Resource Engineers should be competent in hydraulic and hydrologic principals,
as well as in the application of principals to the solution of practical problems. Civil engineering
graduates are faced with hydraulic and hydrology problems too complex to solve by hand.
While most commercially available software packages obscure the theoretical background for
program algorithms. The Solver function in Microsoft Excel provides a valuable tool for
bridging those gaps. Students and engineering professionals can use appropriate linear or
nonlinear mathematical equations to represent a hydraulic and hydrologic system, and then use
the Solver function to solve equations for various combinations of input data. This paper
describes and demonstrates how effective the Solver function can be used to solve various
hydraulics and hydrology problems, for example, compute normal depth and critical depth for
channel flow, water depths before and after a hydraulic jump, constant rainfall loss, Horton’s
infiltration parameters, and aquifer constant for confined aquifers. The Solver function can
replace traditional methods such as trial-and-error and chart method to solve various problems in
the water resource engineering area. Using the Solver function not only provides more accurate
solution but also saves time and effort to solve the same or similar type of problems since
spreadsheet developed for using Solver can be used repeatedly with different input data,
constraints, changing cells (variables), and target cell (parameter).

Introduction
There are many problems in the field of water resource engineering which are difficult to
solve analytically and are normally solved by a trial-and-error method or using monographs or
charts (Roberson et al., 1997). Students and professional practitioners in water resource
engineering often need to determine normal depth, critical depth, and conjugate depths for a
hydraulic jump. Manning’s equation can be used to compute normal depth, but there is no
analytical solution for non-linear (Manning’s) equation even for simple rectangular channel
geometry. Chow (1959) developed monographs to compute normal depth and critical depth for
______________________________________________________________________
1a
Associate professor, 1bGraduate students, Department of Civil Engineering, Lamar University,
Beaumont, Texas 77710-0024, xing.fang@lamar.edu
rectangular, trapezoidal with equal side slope, and circular channels. Monographs can not be
used for triangular channels, trapezoidal channels with different side slopes, and irregular shaped
channels. These monographs are adopted for many textbooks (e.g., Roberson et al, 1997), but
use of monographs often loses accuracy due to the limit of resolution. Alternatively a trial-and-
error method is often used. Therefore, civil engineering graduates are faced with dilemma to
deal with such type of problem because most realistic hydraulics and hydrology problems are too
complex to solve by hand, while most commercially available software packages are complex
and obscure the theoretical background for program algorithms.
As long as unknown parameters and given parameters or characteristics of the problem
can be presented into equations, unknown parameters can be easily solved by using Solver
function in the Microsoft Excel. The Solver function provides a valuable tool for bridging the
gap between understanding of hydraulic and hydrologic principals and solution methods to
practical problems in water resource engineering. The Solver function is an attractive tool for
students and engineers to use for at least two reasons. Firstly, Excel is perhaps the most familiar
spreadsheet used both in business and universities and as such is very accessible. Secondly, the
spreadsheet offers very convenient data entry and editing features which allows the students and
professionals to gain greater understanding of how to solve linear and non linear equations.
Students and engineering professionals can use appropriate linear or nonlinear mathematical
models or equations to depict a realistic system, and then use an equation Solver package to
solve models and equations for various combination of input data desired. For example, the
Solver function was used to solve reservoir optimization problems for water supply and energy
generation by Dr. Fontane (2001) at the Colorado State University. This paper will describe and
demonstrate how effective the Solver function can be used for the solutions of hydraulics and
hydrology problems, for example, to compute normal depth and critical depth for channel flow
and water depths before and after a hydraulic jump, to estimate constant rainfall loss, Horton
rainfall loss parameters, and aquifer constants for confined aquifers. Water Resource Engineers
should be competent in hydraulic and hydrologic principals, as well as in the application of
principals to the solution of practical problems.

Solving Non-linear Equation Using the Solver function in Microsoft Excel

Microsoft Excel provides two tools (Goal Seek and Solver) to find roots of non-linear
equations (Liengme, 2002), such as equations often used to describe hydraulic and hydrology
principles. Some of non-linear equations may be solved analytically, for example, a quadratic
equation, but for many other non-linear equations the analytical solution may be very complex or
not exist at all. Therefore, numerical methods, e.g., the Newton-Raphson method, are often used
to find approximate roots or numerical solutions for those non-linear equations. Goal Seek is a
very easy tool to solve equations but it has its limitations (Liengme, 2002). The Solver function
in Microsoft Excel is much powerful than Goal Seek, and it was originally designed for
optimization problems but it is useful for root finding of non-linear equations with various
constraints. Solver is licensed to Microsoft by Frontline Systems, Inc. whose web site
(www.Solver.com) has much more information on the product. Several advantages of using
Solver in comparison to using Goal Seek are (Liengme, 2002):
(1). When you have used Solver once on a worksheet, it will retain its settings when it is next
used on that worksheet.
 (2). Whereas Goal Seek allows you to vary or solve one cell (variable), with Solver you can
vary 200 cells but using no more than 16 ranges.
(3). Solver permits constraints, for example, you can set that a varied cell always has a
positive value or greater than a specific value.
Solver is a useful tool for conducting a what-if analysis when we need to adjust the values in
more than one cell and have multiple constraints for those values. Many problems in water
resources engineering were used to solve by a trial-and-error method, and by using the Solver
function, these problems can be solved very easily with high accuracy of results devoting
minimum amount of time.
Figure 1 shows basic setting to use the Solver in Microsoft Excel, and more details will
be illustrated later when the Solver is used to solve various types of problems in the water
resource engineering. When using the Solver, one must identify or set minimum three
components of the problem one wants to solve,
• A target cell that one wants to set to a certain value (solve equation) or that one wants to
maximize or minimize (optimization problems). This cell must contain a formula which
is ultimately linked with changing cells. The target cell can only be a single cell,
therefore, sometimes it is necessary to combine equations and to reduce targeted values
(goals) into one single cell.
• Equal to, which is used to specify whether one wants the target cell to be maximized,
minimized, or set to a specific value. If one wants a specific value, type it in the box.
• Changing cells, which is the cell or cells that can be adjusted until the constraints in the
problem are satisfied and the target cell reaches its targeted value. These cells are also
called adjustable cells which are unknowns one wants to solve in nonlinear equations.
Again, the adjustable cells must be related directly or indirectly to the target cell.
and “Subject to the Constraints” which lists the current restrictions on the problem and is one
of the optional components used to solve some of problems, for example, in the Muskingum
routing equation, weighting factor X lies between 0 and 0.5, which is set as a constraint.
There are many problems in the water resource engineering which are difficult to be
solved analytically and are often solved by a trial-and-error method or using monographs or
charts (Roberson et al., 1997). As long as unknown parameters and given parameters or
characteristics of the problem can be presented into equations or formulas, unknown parameters
can be easily solved by using the Solver function in the Microsoft Excel. Several examples of
using the Solver function in Microsoft Excel to solve trial-and-error type of problems are
illustrated below.
 Choose a cell in which should be maximized, minimized, or equal to a particular quantity

Choose cell(s) that

the Solver will
manipulate in
order to change or
make the target
cell to designated
value

Solver allows user

to add constraints
to control the
ways in which it
manipulates
changing cell(s).

Figure 1. Basic settings for using Solver in Microsoft Excel.

Compute Critical Depth of Open Channel Flows

Determination of critical depth in an open channel flow is important to hydraulic analysis
and design. The critical depth (yc) for a rectangular channel is determined using the equation,
y c = ( q 2 / g )1 / 3 (1)
where q is the discharge per unit width of the channel, and g is the acceleration of gravity. For
critical depth computation in trapezoidal, circular, and natural channels, there is no analytical
equation to give direct solution of yc, and yc is often determined by a trial-and-error method to
make Froude Number [Fr, defined in equation (2)] to be 1.0. To assist engineers to determine
the critical depth, a monograph was developed by Chow (1959) and has limited resolution on
solution accuracy.

Vc Q / Ac Q 2Tc
Frc = = = =1 (2)
gDc gAc / Tc gAc3

where Q is the discharge, Vc is the flow velocity, Dc is the mean water depth and equal to Ac/Tc,
Ac is the flow cross-sectional area, Tc is the flow top width of the channel (at the free surface),
and subscript “c” stands for under the critical flow condition. Above flow characteristics (Vc,
Dc, Ac, Tc) are the function of water depth (yc) and channel geometry. It is typically difficult to
solve yc analytically from equation (2), while a trial-and-error method to make the Froude
number equal to 1 is time consuming, tedious and may not be able to find the exact solution.
Using the equation (2) with equations for channel geometrical parameters (given in various
hydraulics books and engineering handbooks, e.g., Chow, 1959; Simon and Korom, 1997; Saleh,
2002), the example below demonstrates that an Excel spreadsheet can be developed and used to
compute the critical depth with the application of the Solver function in Microsoft Excel.
Figure 2 shows an Excel spreadsheet to compute the critical depth in a trapezoidal
channel. This spreadsheet can be used to determine critical depth for a triangular channel if the
channel bottom width (B) is set to be zero and for a rectangular channel if channel size slopes Z1
and Z2 are set to be zero (H:V). The initial value of the critical depth is arbitrarily set to be 1 ft
for a trapezoidal channel with side slopes of 2 and 3, bottom width of 20 ft, and discharge of 600
cfs, and computed corresponding Froude number is 4.96 which is much greater than the targeted
value of 1. After the Solver function is activated by selecting “Solver …” under “Tools” pull-
down menu of Excel, “Solver Parameters” window is shown in Fig 1. User has to select or set
one (and only one) target cell and select one or more than one changing cell(s). For critical
depth computation, the target cell is set as the cell D18 (Fig. 1) which is computed Froude
number, and the changing cell is D10 which is the (critical) water depth (yc). It is optional to add
any constrains to further control the ways in which Solver manipulates the changing cell(s), for
example, user could add D10 > 1 based on the initial value of water depth and corresponding
Froude number, but this constrain is not necessary. After applying the Solver function computed
critical depth is given as 2.697 ft.
This spreadsheet can be reused again and again to compute critical depth with other
combinations of channel bottom width, side slopes and discharges. This spreadsheet can also be
reused to solve for channel geometrical parameters when the critical depth is known, for
example, let’s assume the critical depth to be 2 ft, find corresponding discharge Q. What user
has to do is to set D10 = 2ft and set the changing cell as D9, then click on “Solve” button,
computed discharge is 365.9 cfs. Similar spreadsheet for a circular channel (underground sewer
pipes) is also developed (Figure 3). Application of the Solver function to compute critical depth
is useful to college students in learning open-channel hydraulics and to engineers for their
professional practices, which they don’t have to heavily rely on other complex software.

Compute Normal Depth of Open Channel Flows

Normal depth in an open channel flow is another important parameter for hydraulic
analysis and design. Normal depth (yn) is the water depth in an open channel under steady
uniform flow condition. Discharge of a uniform flow in a channel is often computed using the
Manning’s equation,
Q = (φ/ n) ARh2/3S1/2 (3)
where φ equals to 1.49 for English units and 1.0 for SI units, n is the Manning’s roughness
coefficient, A is the flow area, Rh is the hydraulic radius and equals to A/P, P is the wetted
perimeter, and S is the bed slope of the channel. In the above equation (3), ARh2/3 = n Q/[φS0.5]
is known as section factor, and φ/n ARh2/3 = Q/S1/2 is the conveyance of the channel which is a
measure of the carrying capacity of the channel section. For a simple-geometry channel where
AR2/3 always increases with increasing depth, each discharge has a corresponding unique value
of depth at which uniform flow occurs.
Since an analytical solution of the equation (3) to compute normal depth is difficult, in
typical hydraulics textbooks (e.g., Roberson et al., 1997), it is recommended to compute the
section factor first from given discharge, channel slope and roughness, and then to use a trial-
and-error method to solve normal depth based on given geometrical relationships for each type
of channel geometry. Some monographs of normal depth yn versus the section factor were
developed for students and engineers to use (Chow, 1959). Using the equation (3) and channel
geometrical relationships an Excel spreadsheet can be developed and used to compute normal
depth and solve for various other channel parameters with the application of the Solver function.
Figure 4 shows an example of spreadsheet to compute normal depth in a trapezoidal
channel. The first guessed normal depth is 3 ft and computed discharge by Manning’s equation
is 382.6 cfs, and after applying the Solver function, computed normal depth is 2.41 ft. Again the
spreadsheet in Fig. 4 can be reused to determine normal depth for a triangular channel if the
channel bottom width (B) is set to be zero and for a rectangular channel if channel size slopes Z1
and Z2 are set to be zero (H:V).

Figure 2. An Excel spreadsheet to compute critical depth in a trapezoidal channel (top) and set
up of Solver parameters (bottom).
Figure 3. Spreadsheet for computing critical depth for circular channels.

The spreadsheet in Fig. 4 can be reused to solve other channel geometry and flow
parameters under normal flow condition. For example, when discharge (Q), Manning’s (n) and
depth of flow are given for the channel section, the equation (3) can be used to determine the
bottom width under constrains of maximum permissible velocities and permissible side slope
based on channel material (Fortier and Scobey, 1926; Chow, 1959). Figure 5 shows modified
spreadsheet for a channel design problem. It needs to design a trapezoidal channel to carry 600
cfs flood flow away from the proposed office-residential complex and design an earth lined
channel using sandy loam on the site with channel slope of 0.0002. Suggested channel side slope
for using sandy loam is 3 horizontal versus 1 vertical (Chow, 1959), and maximum permissible
velocity and Manning’s n for sandy loam are 1.75 ft/s and 0.02 (Fortier and Scobey, 1926),
which haven been input in Fig. 5. Two design parameters are bottom width and channel depth,
and were determined to be 146.96 ft and 2.25 ft (Fig. 5) after applying the Solver function.
Target cell is still computed discharge to be 600 cfs, and adjustable cells are D3 and D4
corresponding channel width and depth, and one constrain is used: D17 <= 1.75 ft/s, that
indicates mean velocity less than maximum permissible velocity.
 An effort is made to compute normal depth for an irregular shaped channel as shown in
Fig. 6. It requires a user to input channel geometry in station (x, ft or m) and corresponding
elevation (y, ft or m). Elevation can be given as relative to any arbitrary datum. Channel
geometrical parameters for an irregular shaped channel, e.g., flow area, wetted perimeter, and top
width, has to be computed using coordinate method (Anderson and Mikhail, 1998), which was
implemented by writing a VBA function under Microsoft Excel as partially shown in Fig. 7.
After channel parameters can be computed by VBA function, the Solve function can then be
used again to determine the normal depth, and also critical depth. Computed normal depth is
1.096 ft as initial depth was assumed as 2.0 ft. Above spreadsheets are carefully designed to
solve problems for both SI and FPS units: a cell (D8 in Fig. 6) is used as 1 for SI and 0 for FPS
units, and the cell for computed discharge using Manning’s equation does automatically switch
coefficient between 1.49 for FPS and 1.0 for SI units.

Figure 4. An Excel spreadsheet to compute normal depth in a trapezoidal channel.

Figure 5. An Excel spreadsheet for a channel design problem.

Compute Water Depth Before or After a Hydraulic Jump

The hydraulic jump occurs when the flow changes from supercritical flow in an upstream
section to subcritical flow in a downstream section. The upstream and downstream depths of the
hydraulic jump are determined by applying the momentum equation because the energy loss in a
hydraulic jump is not clearly known and the energy equation is not a suitable tool for analysis of
the velocity-depth relationships for a hydraulic jump. If the resistance of the channel bottom is
negligible, applying the momentum equation for a horizontal channel gives,
P1*A1 + ρQV1 = P2*A2 + ρQV2 (4)
where P1 and P2 are the upstream and downstream pressure at the centroids of the respective
areas A1 and A2, V1 and V2 are the upstream and downstream flow velocity, and Q is the flow
discharge in the channel. Experiments also show that equation (4) can be applied to all channels
of moderate slope (So < 0.02) (Roberson et al., 1997). For horizontal rectangular channels, to
use the momentum equation (4) with the continuity equation (V1A1 = V2A2) leads to,
Figure 6 An Excel spreadsheet to compute normal depth in an irregular shaped channel.

y1
y2 = ( 1 + 8 Fr21 − 1) (5)
2
where y1 and y2 are water depths before and after the hydraulic jump, and Fr1 is Froude number
[defined in equation (2) above] at the cross section 1. The experimental relations between y1/y2
and Froude number Fr1 for hydraulic jumps in rectangular channels with various bottom slopes
(S from 0 to 0.30) was given by Chow (1959). For trapezoidal channel, analytical formula can’t
be developed and momentum equation (4) is used to determine depths before and after a
hydraulic jump from one to the other, but an iterative or trial-and-error method is typically used
to solve the equation (4) (Roberson et al., 1997). Excel spreadsheets can be developed as shown
in Figure 8 to compute conjugate depths before and after a hydraulic jump for trapezoidal and
triangular channels. The Solver function can set one of the conjugate depths as changing cell
and set the difference of (PA+ρQV) before and after the jump as the target cell and its value to be
zero. Necessary geometrical relationships have to be developed within Excel for trapezoidal
channel (Fig. 8). Froude numbers at the cross sections before and after the jump give useful
information to validate the solution. Again, when B or side slopes Z1 and Z2 are set to be zero,
the spreadsheet can be used for a triangular and rectangular channel.

Figure 7 Channel geometry function developed using VBA under Microsoft Excel.
Figure 8. An Excel spreadsheet to compute depth before and after a hydraulic jump for a
trapezoidal channel.
Determine Aquifer Transmissivity and Storativity
Transmissivity and storativity are the hydraulic properties of an aquifer. The capacity of
an aquifer to transmit water is called its transmissivity. Transmissivity is defined as the amount
of water that can be transmitted horizontally through a unit width and full saturated thickness of
an aquifer under a unit hydraulic gradient, and equals to hydraulic conductivity (K) times aquifer
thickness (b). Storativity is the volume of water that an aquifer will release or take into storage
per unit surface area per unit change in hydraulic head. Storativity is dimensionless, and for
confined aquifers it ranges from 0.005 to 0.00005 (Freeze and Cherry, 1979)
When a new well is first pumped, a large portion of the discharge comes directly from the
storage volume released as the cone depression develops. When steady-state conditions of
groundwater flow around a well are not encountered, a non-equilibrium equation must be used.
There are two approaches, which have been developed to solve the non-equilibrium equation, a
rather rigorous method of C.V. Theis (1935) and a simplified procedure such as that proposed by
Cooper and Jacob (1946). Theis (1935) provided a solution to unsteady flow equation (6) in a
confined aquifer of constant thickness b.
S c ∂h
∇2h = (6)
T ∂t
where h is the piezometer head (ft or m), T is the aquifer transmissivity (ft2/day, m2/day or gpd/ft
in American practice) and Sc is the storativity and also known as aquifer storage coefficient.
Theis (1935) stated that the drawdown (s) in an observation well located at a distance r (length
unit) from the pumped well is given by:
Q ∞ e −u Q W (u )
s= ∫ du = (7a)
4π T u u 4π T
114.6Q W (u )
s= (7b)
T
where Q is the constant pumping rate [ft3/day or m3/day for Equation (7a), gpm for equation (7b)
with T of gpd/ft], and u is a dimensionless variable defined as:
Sc 2 1.87 S c 2
u= r or u = r with T of gpd/ft (8)
4T t Tt
The integral in equation (7a) is commonly called as well function of u and is written as W(u).
W(u) can be evaluated from the infinite series when u is small:
u2 u3 u4 u5
W (u ) = −0.577216 − ln u + u − + − + + .... (9)
2 * 2! 3 * 3! 4 * 4! 5 * 5!
In order to solve equations (6) and (7) and to determine aquifer constants (T and Sc), two log-log
plots should be developed and utilized (Viessman et al., 2003): the first one is a log-log plot of u
versus W(u) (known as a type curve) and the second one is a log-log plot of the observed data r2/t
versus drawdown (s). W(u) and s are ordinates and u and r2/t are abscissas. The two curves are
imposed and moved about until segments of two curves coincide. In this operation the axes must
remain parallel. A coincide point is then selected on the matched curves and both plots marked.
Corresponding values of u, W(u), s and r2/t are determined from the plots at marked point, then
aquifer constants can be computed from equations (6) and (7).
The graphic method is time-consuming because two log-log plots are needed. The above
method also generates some errors because the values of u, W(u), s and r2/t depend on the
coincide point. Different engineers may find different points due to personal experience.
Cooper-Jacob (1946) simplified the Theis method when the pumping time (t) is long enough (or
r is small enough) then the “u” parameter becomes small enough (<0.05) that most of terms
(equation 9) can be ignored in the series expansion of the well function. Well function can be
closely approximated by only the first two terms of the equation: W (u ) = −0.577216 − ln u .
After a semi-log plot of drawdown (s) versus log (t / r 2 ) with a linear regression line is
developed, transmissivity and storativity of an aquifer can be calculated using the following
equations.
2.3 Q 246 Q
T= or T = (American practice) (10)
4π ∆s ∆s
t t
Sc = 2.25T ( ) or Sc = 0.3T ( 2 ) 0 (American practice with T of gpd/ft) (11)
2 0
r r
where ∆s is the slope of the linear regression line and (t / r 2 ) o is the value of t / r 2 at drawdown
equal to zero. In order to develop the linear regression line, sometime it is necessary to remove
some data points where u is not small enough. A linear plot of s versus log (t / r 2 ) (Gupta, 2001)
as shown in Figure 10 is a more general plot in comparison to a plot s versus t (Linsley et al.,
1986; Viessman and Lewis, 2003), and it can handle three general cases: (1) the drawdown
measurements are made in an observation well at various times (distance r is a constant), (2) the
drawdown measurements are made at a given time in various wells (time t is a constant), and (3)
the drawdown measurements are made in many wells at various times. If the liner regression
line can be presented as s = ∆s log(t / r 2 ) + sint , then (t / r 2 ) o = - sint/ ∆s (sint is the intercept of the
liner regression line on the drawdown axis). It should be noted that the Cooper-Jacob method is
a simplification of the Theis formula. The error associated with the approximation is as follows:

For u smaller than The resultant error is less than

0.03 1%
0.05 2%
0.10 5%
0.15 10%
(From http://www.edumine.com/xtoolkit/xmlicon/Jacob_accuracy.html )

In this study, an Excel spreadsheet is developed to combine Cooper-Jacob method and

Solver function to obtain transmissivity and storativity of an aquifer for u greater or smaller than
0.05. The spreadsheet includes four parts as shown in Figure 10. Part 1 includes given pumping
rate (Q at cell F5) and storativity (cell F3) and transmissivity (cell F4) which need to be solved;
part 2 is used to perform unsteady-state aquifer analysis using Theis equation and the Solver
function; part 3 develops estimated storativity and transmissivity by Cooper-Jacob method, and
Determination of Aquifer Constants for Confined Aquifers
Aquifer storativity, S (dimensionless) 6.6802E-02
Aquifer transmissivity, T (ft2/day or m2/day) 1.9347E+03 1.2051E+04 gpd/ft
3 3
Pumping rate from the well, Q, (ft /day or m /day 129600.0
3
Computed pumping rate from gpm (ft /day) 693360.0 3000 gpm

Unsteady-State Anaysis of Confined Aquifer (Theis Equation) - Using Solver Function

2 2
Time (t) Distance (r) log[t/r ] Measured u w(u) Computed ∆s
2
(min) (ft or m) sm, (ft or m) sc (ft or m) (sm-sc)
60.0 100.0 -2.222 0.60 2.07167279 0.04462 0.238 1.311E-01
120.0 100.0 -1.921 1.40 1.03583640 0.20726 1.105 8.713E-02
180.0 100.0 -1.745 2.40 0.69055760 0.38125 2.032 1.352E-01
240.0 100.0 -1.620 2.90 0.51791820 0.53936 2.875 6.198E-04
300.0 100.0 -1.523 3.30 0.41433456 0.67972 3.623 1.045E-01
360.0 100.0 -1.444 4.00 0.34527880 0.80460 4.289 8.352E-02
480.0 100.0 -1.319 5.20 0.25895910 1.01779 5.425 5.082E-02
600.0 100.0 -1.222 6.20 0.20716728 1.19474 6.369 2.845E-02
720.0 100.0 -1.143 7.50 0.17263940 1.34562 7.173 1.070E-01
1080.0 100.0 -0.967 9.10 0.11509293 1.69749 9.049 2.640E-03
1440.0 100.0 -0.842 10.50 0.08631970 1.95779 10.436 4.077E-03
Sum of sqaure difference of drawdown, ∆s2 7.351E-01
Root mean sqaure of residuals of drawdown (ft or meter) 2.585E-01

Drawdown - Time and Distance Analysis (Cooper-Jacob Method)

Slope of drawdown curve (∆s per log cycle) 7.4592

Intercept of drawdown curve 15.653
2 2
Estimated initial aquifer transmissivity, T (ft /day or m /day) 3.1800E+03
2 2 2
(t/r )o (min/ft or min/m ) 7.9711E-03
Estimated initial aquifer storativity, S (dimensionless) 3.9607E-02

Figure 10a. Parts 1 to 3 of an Excel spreadsheet to estimate aquifer constants using Cooper-
Jacob method and Solver function.
 Drawdown Curve---Cooper-Jocob Method

Measured Computed Linear (Measured)

12.0

10.0
y = 7.4592x + 15.653
2
Drawdown, s (ft or m)

8.0 R = 0.932

6.0

4.0

2.0

0.0
-3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0
2
Log (t/r )

Figure 10b. Part 2 (graphic plot) of an Excel spreadsheet to estimate aquifer constants using
Cooper-Jacob method and Solver function.

part 4 is a plot of s versus log (t / r 2 ) including a linear regression line, regression equation and
computed drawdown; for part 2, column B (time t), C (well location r), and E (measured
drawdown) are given measurements; and column D is computed log (t / r 2 ) ; columns F and G are
u and W(u) computed from Theis equations 8 and 9; column H is computed drawdown s from
equation 7b; and column I is squared difference of measured and computed drawdown. Sum of
squared difference of drawdown (Σ∆s2) is used as target cell of the Solver function, and root
mean square of errors (residuals) of drawdown (RMSE) is also computed. In order to apply the
Solver function to determine storativity and transmissivity, initial guess values of Sc and T must
be given and was found to be difficult to specify them since aquifer constants vary in very wide
range. Without specifying reasonable initial guess values for Sc and T, the Solver function does
not give any useful result at all. Reasonable initial guess values are developed by using Copper-
Jacob method in parts 3 and 4.
Columns D and E of part 2 are used to generate a plot of s versus log (t / r 2 ) in order to
develop linear regression equation and trend line. Two constants of linear regression equation for
part 4 are input into part 3, and transmissivity and storativity are determined from Cooper-Jacob
equations (10) and (11). Estimated transmissivity and storativity are then input in cells F3 and
F4 as initial values, and the Solver function is applied to get final aquifer constants. The
spreadsheet documents a streamlined procedure to determine aquifer constants and was tested by
seven problems in three hydrology textbooks (Linsley et al., 1986; Gupta, 2001; Viessman and
Lewis, 2003). Results of estimated aquifer constants by different methods are summarized in
Table 1. Results using Cooper-Jacob method are typically acute based on errors (Table 1) on
estimated and measured drawdown, and results using Solver function and initial values
developed from Cooper-Jacob method are most accurate for all problems tested. Results using
Cooper-Jacob method developed by one analyst to another could be different if it is necessary to
remove some data points where u isn’t small enough. For example, Figure 10 used all eleven
measure data points, T and Sc are estimated as 3180 ft2/day and 0.0396 by using Cooper-Jacob
method with error (RMSE) in drawdown estimation of 0.97 ft. If the first three data points with
larger u are removed, T and Sc are estimated as 2329 ft2/day and 0.0505 with RMSE of 0.72 ft.
After applying the Solver function with anyone of the two results developed by Cooper-Jacob
method, it will have the same final results of T and Sc to be 1935 ft2/day and 0.0668 with RMSE
of 0.26 ft. Therefore, using the Solver function coupled with Jacob method leads to much
accurate estimation on T and Sc for confined aquifers (Table 1).

Table 1 Comparison of aquifer constants estimated by different methods and associated RMSR
(root mean square of residuals) between measured and estimated drawdown.

Testing Storativity, Sc
Problems Theis Chart Method Cooper-Jacob Method Jacob Plus Solver
A 1.9300E-04 1.7971E-04 1.8310E-04
B 1.2000E-04 9.4238E-05 9.4880E-05
C 6.4000E-02 3.9607E-02 6.6800E-02
D 2.2000E-01 1.5769E-01 2.6363E-01
E 4.8800E-04 3.5171E-04 4.5675E-04
F 1.0640E-02 1.1206E-02 1.2466E-02
G 2.6300E-02 3.7823E-04 4.4526E-04
2
Testing Transmissivity, T (ft /day)
Problems Theis Chart Method Cooper-Jacob Method Jacob Plus Solver
A 1.3880E+04 1.3696E+04 1.3696E+04
B 1.1940E+03 1.2243E+03 1.2243E+03
C 2.1240E+03 3.1800E+03 1.9347E+03
D 1.4747E+04 1.8442E+04 1.5084E+04
E 9.0817E+02 9.7920E+02 8.9282E+02
F 2.2122E+04 2.2807E+04 2.2014E+04
G 1.2313E+04 1.5197E+04 1.5197E+04
Testing Root mean sqaure of residuals ∆S (ft or meter)
Problems Theis Chart Method Cooper-Jacob Method Jacob Plus Solver
A 6.5466E-02 3.4917E-02 3.3347E-02
B 2.2773E-02 1.3302E-03 2.1100E-04
C 2.9845E-01 9.6502E-01 2.5851E-01
D 1.0909E-01 1.5875E-01 1.6569E-02
E 9.2394E-01 1.1184E+00 7.7471E-01
F 7.9603E-02 4.6188E-02 3.9810E-02
G 1.1137E+00 1.3502E-01 1.0502E-01

Note: A and B are Examples 4.9 and 4.10 from Gupta (2001); C is Example 6.1 from Linsley et
al. (1986); and D, E, F, and G are Example 10.7, Problems 10.22, 10.26, and 10.30 from
Viessman and Lewis (2003), respectively.
Estimate Constant Rainfall Loss Rate
In order to develop hydrographs for a watershed, rainfall and runoff model can be used,
and the model typically requires to estimate or specify rainfall loss in order to compute rainfall
excess hyetograph from given rainfall distribution. One of rainfall loss model is constant rainfall
loss or initial loss plus constant rainfall loss, which is called as phi index method. If the volume
(in inches) of the direct runoff hydrograph (DRH) or total rainfall excess, rainfall hyetograph or
distribution, and initial loss are given, it requires a few iteration to determine the constant rainfall
loss or loss rate (φ, in/hr) (Chow et al, 1988). Initial loss may distribute in the first or several
time steps. If the constant rainfall loss is greater than rainfall itself within a time interval, the
rainfall loss should be set as rainfall itself.
In order to determine the constant rainfall loss, it needs to specify those logical
relationships in the spreadsheet before the Solver function can be used. For example, the first
cell for initial loss (C8 in Fig. 11) uses a logical formula “ =IF(F2<B8, F2, B8)”, and the second
cell (C9) uses “=IF(D8<$F$2, IF(($F$2-D8)<B9, ($F$2-D8), B9),0)”, where the cell F2 is given
total initial loss (inches), the column D computes cumulative initial loss. The cells for constant
rainfall loss (column E) use two IF logical statements: “=IF((B8-C8)<$F$3, IF(C8=0, B8, 0),
$F$3)”, where F3 is the constant rainfall loss, (B8-C8) gives remaining rainfall at each time
interval after removing initial loss. This logical formula states that if remaining rainfall is greater
than the constant rainfall loss, then the loss will just be the constant loss, otherwise the loss
should be rainfall itself (e.g. from cell E28 to E31) or zero (e.g., C8 or initial loss is not zero).
The Solver function is to change the constant rainfall loss (cell F3) until the difference between
given and computed total rainfall excess is zero, for example, if the initial guess for constant
rainfall loss is 0.03”, then computed total rainfall excess (red cell G33) is 2.44 which is 0.44”
bigger than given total rainfall excess of 2”. After applying the Solver function, the final
constant rainfall loss is 0.0532” if total initial loss is 0.6” or 0.0661” if total initial loss is 0.3”.
The Excel spreadsheet developed in Figure 11 can be reused for other rainfall distributions
without or with minor modification.
Figure 11 An Excel spreadsheet to compute constant rainfall loss.
Estimate Horton’s Infiltration Parameters
Horton’s infiltration model (Horton, 1935) is another common rainfall loss model and
states that
f p (t ) = f c + ( f 0 − f c ) e − kt (12)

where fp is the infiltration capacity or potential (in/hr) at time t, k is a constant (1/hr) representing
the rate of decrease in infiltration capacity, fc is the final or equilibrium infiltration capacity
(in/hr), and fo is the initial infiltration capacity (in/hr). Actually, the equation (12) only gives
infiltration capacity when ponding occurs immediately after rainfall starts (t = 0), that is when
rainfall intensity i > fo. If constant rainfall intensity i is less than fo, ponding time (tp) and
equivalent starting time (to) can be determined as (Chow et al., 1988)

1 ⎡ fo − fc ⎤
tp = f
⎢ o − i + f c ln ⎥ (13)
ik ⎣ i − fc ⎦

1 fo − fc
to = t p + ln (14)
k i − fc
If time t is greater than the ponding time tp, the equation (12) above can be used to compute the
infiltration capacity by replacing t to (t - to). Actual infiltration rate is always the minimum of
rainfall intensity and infiltration capacity. Horton’s infiltration parameters can be estimated from
infiltration rate measurements (e.g. using infiltrometer) as shown in Figure 12. When the Solver
function is used to estimate infiltration parameters, the target cell is H54 which is the root mean
square of errors or residuals (RMSE) between measured and predicted infiltration rate, and
adjustable cells could be four cells C56 to C59. From equations (13) and (14), one can see that to
is not independent of fo, fc, k, and i. Therefore, five constraints are used with the Solver function
as shown in Figure 13: fc or C56 <= 0.207 (the last infiltration measurement), k or C57 > 0, fo or
C58 >= 0.6 (constant rainfall intensity), to or C60 <= 1.7 (that is the time when infiltration starts
to decrease, to < tp < 1.7 hrs), and C59 = C61 which means assumed to should be eventually
equal to computed to from the equation (14). Without the last constraints, the Solver function
will not give correct results of infiltration parameters because it has too much freedom on four
adjustable parameters. It is possible to only use three adjustable cells: fo, fc, and k (C56 to C58),
then tp and to are calculated from equations (13) and (14), and computed to will be used to
compute fp using the equation (12). If only three adjustable cells are used, then only the first
three constrains in Figure 13 are necessary. Both methods will lead to the same results on
infiltration parameter estimation as shown in Figure 13. The spreadsheet in Fig. 12 includes two
“extra” columns “f(t) – fc”, ln[f(t) – fc]; these two columns can be used to estimate k by
developing a linear regression equation between ln[f(t) – fc] and t as the equation (12) states that,
but a graph for linear regression is not given here. The last column F(t) is accumulated
infiltration at time t and computed by numerical integration of f(t) versus t. The cell D62 in Fig.
12 is computed theoretical accumulated infiltration F(t = 7 hrs) based on estimated infiltration
parameters, and D62 is the same as I52 which further indicates estimated infiltration parameters
are correct.
Figure 12 An Excel spreadsheet to estimate Horton’s Infiltration parameters.
Figure 13 Set up of Solver parameters for estimating Horton’s infiltration parameters.

Summary and Conclusion

Water Resource Engineers should be competent in hydraulic and hydrologic principals,
as well as in the application of principals to the solution of practical problems. Microsoft Excel
has a Solver function that can be used to solve non-linear equations for various combinations of
input data desired. This paper has described and demonstrated how effective the Solver function
can be used to solve various hydraulics and hydrology problems, for example, compute normal
depth and critical depth for channel flow, water depths before and after a hydraulic jump,
constant rainfall loss, Horton’s infiltration parameters, and aquifer constants for confined
aquifers. The Solver function is an effective tool to solve one or multiple unknown parameters
as long as unknown parameters can be presented as one or several linear or non-linear equations
or formulas. Various constraints can be used with Solver function which greatly increases the
power of the Solver function. The Solver function can be utilized to replace traditional methods
such as trial-and-error method and chart method to solve various problems in the water resource
engineering area. It not only provides more accurate solution but also saves time and efforts to
solve the same or similar type of problems since spreadsheet developed with using the Solver
can be utilized repeatedly with different input data, constraints, changing cells (variables), and
target cell (parameter). Excel spreadsheets developed can be useful tools to do necessary
calculations for engineering design and analysis and also to check or understand outputs of
complex software packages in hydraulics and hydrology. To develop a spreadsheet using the
Solver function may not be easy task because it requires developer has clear understanding of
hydraulic and hydrological principles of the problem, and utilize principles to develop correct
geometrical relationships, apply correct linear or non-linear equations or formulas, and code
necessary logical algorithms in Microsoft Excel. Development of Excel spreadsheets using the
Solver function can help students, graduates, and professionals to get in-depth understanding of
basic principles in hydraulics and hydrology.
References
Anderson, J.M., and E.M. Mikhail, 1998. Surveying: Theory and Practice, 7th edition, McGraw-
Hill, New York.
Chanson, H., 2004. The Hydraulics of Open Channel Flow: An Introduction. 2nd Edition.
Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann.
Chow, V.T., 1959. Open Channel Hydraulics. McGraw-Hill, New York.
Chow, V.T., D.R. Maidment, and L.W. Mays, 1988. Applied Hydrology. McGraw-Hill, New
York.
Fontane D., 2001. Multi-objective simulation and optimization of reservoir operation using
Excel. Proceeding of the Second Federal Interagency Hydrologic Modeling Conference,
Las Vegas, NV.
Fortie, S., and F.C. Scobey, 1926. Permissible canal velocities. Trans. ASCE, 89:940-954.
Freeze R.A., and J.A. Cherry, 1979. Groundwater. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Gupta, R. S., 2001. Hydrology and Hydraulic System. 2nd Edition. Prospect Heights, IL:
Waveland Press, Inc.
Horton, R.E., 1935. Surface runoff phenomena: Part I, Analysis of the hydrograph. Horton
Hydrol. Lab., Pub. 101, Ann Arbor, MI.
Liengme, B.V., 2002. A guide to Microsoft Excel 2002 for Scientists and Engineers. 3rd Edition.
Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann.
Linsley, R. K, M. A. Kohler and J. L. Paulhus, 1982. Hydrology for Engineers. 3rd Edition.
McGraw-Hill Book Company
Roberson, J. A, J. J. Cassidy, and M. H Chaudhry, 1997. Hydraulic Engineering. 2nd Edition.
John Willey & Sons, Inc
Viessman, W. J. and G. L. Lewis, 2003. Introduction to Hydrology. 5th Edition. Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.
Cooper, H.H., and C.E. Jacob, 1946, A generalized graphical method for evaluating formation
constants and summarizing well field history, Am. Geophys. Union Trans, Vol. 27,
pp.526-534.
Saleh, J., 2002. Fluid Flow Handbook. McGraw-Hill, New York.
Simon A. L., and S. F. Korom, 1997. Hydraulics, 4th edition. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle
River, NJ.
Theis, C.V., 1935, The relation between the lowering of the piezometric surface and the rate and
duration of discharge of a well using groundwater storage, Trans. Amer. Geophys. Union,
Vol. 16, pp. 519-524.