Comparison of Zero-Inertia and Volume Balance Advance-Infiltration Models

Guardo, Mariano; Oad, Ramchand; Podmore, P.E. Terence H.

doi:10.1061/(asce)0733-9429(2000)126:6(457)

Cited by 11 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…where A is the cross-sectional area, T is the top width, y is the furrow depth, and R is the hydraulic radius, presented in Table 2 as measured before the first irrigation. Infiltration parameters can be estimated by the observed advance data (Elliott et al, 1983;McClymont and Smith, 1996) or by a combination of advance and runoff data (Gillies and Smith, 2005;Scaloppi et al, 1995). The two-point method computes infiltration parameters with the measured advanced data (Gillies and Smith, 2005;Gillies et al, 2007;Guardo et al, 2000).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Infiltration parameters can be estimated by the observed advance data (Elliott et al, 1983;McClymont and Smith, 1996) or by a combination of advance and runoff data (Gillies and Smith, 2005;Scaloppi et al, 1995). The two-point method computes infiltration parameters with the measured advanced data (Gillies and Smith, 2005;Gillies et al, 2007;Guardo et al, 2000). Infiltration in the furrow was computed by the Lewis-Kostiakov equation Z = kτ a + f 0 τ, where Z is the water infiltrated volume per unit length of the furrow, τ is the intake opportunity time, f 0 is the final infiltration rate, and k and a are empirical parameters.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Assessment of straight and meandering furrow irrigation strategies under different inflow rates

Sayari

Rahimpour

Zounemat‐Kermani

2019

WSA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper reports the effect of straight furrow (SF) and meandering furrow (MF) irrigation strategies, as well as inflow rate, on infiltration and hydraulic parameters including advance time, recession time, and runoff hydrograph. The performance of SF and MF irrigation in terms of runoff ratio, deep percolation, and application efficiency was evaluated in 6 furrow fields at Shahid Bahonar University of Kerman, Iran. The required data were collected from the farm, consisting of free drainage furrows with length 70 m, top width 0.8 m, depth 0.25 m, and slope 0.2%. The advance and recession times were significantly longer in MF than SF irrigation. The infiltration was estimated by Lewis-Kostiakov equation. The infiltration coefficients were calculated: The values of k were higher and of a were lower in MF furrows than in SF furrows. The average runoff ratio and application efficiency for the SF irrigation events were 50.53% and 49.07%, respectively, while those of the MF irrigation events were 7.04% and 52.94%, respectively. Based on the results, the velocity of water advance in MF irrigation is decreased and, thus, the runoff, erosion losses, mass of fertilizer lost and surface water contamination were reduced. Using a lower inflow rate and appropriate irrigation time leads to better management outcomes in irrigation systems.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessment of straight and meandering furrow irrigation strategies under different inflow rates

Sayari

Rahimpour

Zounemat‐Kermani

2019

WSA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Among the simplified forms of the St. Venant equations, the non-inertial assumption is more suitable for situations where low velocities are encountered. The noninertial assumption is valid for Froude numbers less than 0.3 as reported by Guardo et al (2000). The Froude number is defined as the ratio of inertial force to gravitational force.…”

Section: Surface Flow Spreadingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Risk Reduction and Soil Ecosystem Restoration in an Active Oil Producing Area in an Ecologically Sensitive Setting

Sublette¹,

Duncan²

2006

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Soil Ecosystem Restoration: The empowerment of small independent oil and gas producers to solve their own remediation problems will result in greater environmental compliance and more effective protection of the environment as well as making small producers more self-reliant. In Chapter 1 we report on the effectiveness of a low-cost method of remediation of a combined spill of crude oil and brine in the Tallgrass Prairie Preserve in Osage County, OK. Specifically, we have used hay and fertilizer as amendments for remediation of both the oil and the brine. No gypsum was used. Three spills of crude oil plus produced water brine were treated with combinations of ripping, fertilizers and hay, and a downslope interception trench in an effort to demonstrate an inexpensive, easily implemented, and effective remediation plan. There was no statistically significant effect of treatment on the biodegradation of crude oil. However, TPH reduction clearly proceeded in the presence of brine contamination. The average TPH half-life considering all impacted sites was 267 days. The combination of hay addition, ripping, and a downslope interception trench was superior to hay addition with ripping, or ripping plus an interception trench in terms of rates of sodium and chloride leaching from the impacted sites. Reductions in salt inventories (36 months) were 73% in the site with hay addition, ripping and an interception trench, 40% in the site with hay addition and ripping only, and < 3% in the site with ripping and an interception trench. The effect of fertilizer as an amendment in the bioremediation of a terrestrial crude oil spill has been investigated and reported in Chapter 2 in terms of the subsequent recovery of the soil ecosystem following bioremediation. Two different spills in the

show abstract

“…Infiltration-based models such as the EPA Stormwater Calculator (EPA, [6]) and the Tennessee Runoff Reduction Assessment Tool [7] require knowledge of the stormwater measure's wetted area in order to calculate infiltration, so using these to model a disconnect requires prior calculation of that wetted area. Once the wetted area is calculated, along with other parameters such as soil texture, infiltration can be calculated using empirical models such the modified Kostiakov-Lewis method [8][9][10] or more physically-based models such as Hydrus [11]. Even with just a simplistic understanding of overland water flow, the following behaviors are expected: (1) larger flowrates will wet a larger area, as they will initially be deeper and thus spread more; (2) shallower slopes will result in larger wetted areas, as the downslope velocity will be lower so the flow will have more chance to spread; (3) rougher surfaces will result in larger wetted areas, as the greater flow resistance will cause slower deeper flow and subsequently more spread; and (4) longer slopes will provide more distance for spreading so will result in larger wetted areas.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Estimating the Infiltration Area for Concentrated Stormwater Spreading over Grassed and Other Slopes

Tyner

Yoder

Parker³

et al. 2018

Water

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This research developed a new approach for calculating the area over which water spreads after being released from a confined conduit onto a sloped planar surface with defined roughness. In particular, the goal was to predict how stormwater would spread onto a sloped grass lawn after being discharged from a disconnected gutter downspout or through a parking lot curb cut. The need for this stems primarily from regulators increasingly requiring developers to infiltrate more of the runoff created by site development, but designers not having good tools for estimating the infiltration area associated with such “overflow” practices. The model is largely based on Manning’s equation applied at multiple cross-sectional areas of flow downslope, with additional modifications allowing the water to spread laterally. The model results were compared to laboratory experiments of water spreading across a roughened painted surface and two different artificial turfs. The new model predicted the wetting area with average absolute errors of 6.0% and 5.9% for a fine-bladed artificial turf and a coarse-bladed artificial turf, respectively. In addition, while validating the modeled flow spreading across a range of roughnesses, the model had an absolute error of 5.2% for a rough painted surface meant to represent unfinished concrete.

show abstract

Comparison of Zero-Inertia and Volume Balance Advance-Infiltration Models

Cited by 11 publications

References 12 publications

Assessment of straight and meandering furrow irrigation strategies under different inflow rates

Assessment of straight and meandering furrow irrigation strategies under different inflow rates

Risk Reduction and Soil Ecosystem Restoration in an Active Oil Producing Area in an Ecologically Sensitive Setting

Estimating the Infiltration Area for Concentrated Stormwater Spreading over Grassed and Other Slopes

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About