1980
DOI: 10.1016/0022-1694(80)90018-9
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Dispersivity and velocity relationship from laboratory and field experiments

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

7
45
1
1

Year Published

1989
1989
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
6
2

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 133 publications
(54 citation statements)
references
References 3 publications
7
45
1
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Level set percolation [20,21] is used to generate the porous media. Each node on a three dimensional regular grid is assigned an independent identically distributed random value sampled from a uniform distribution on the closed interval [0,1]. This random field is convolved with a symmetric Gaussian kernel to generate an isotropic correlated random topography.…”
Section: A Pore Space Constructionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Level set percolation [20,21] is used to generate the porous media. Each node on a three dimensional regular grid is assigned an independent identically distributed random value sampled from a uniform distribution on the closed interval [0,1]. This random field is convolved with a symmetric Gaussian kernel to generate an isotropic correlated random topography.…”
Section: A Pore Space Constructionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The ability to investigate details of flow within a pore network is important as it can guide applications ranging from design of engineered materials to evaluation of environmental risks. Detailed predictions of fluxes in pore networks can be limited by observational constraints and analytical inadequacies in dealing with complex boundary conditions arising from variable material properties [1][2][3][4]. Computational experiments are alternatives for investigating detailed characteristics of flow within networks of pores and can yield detailed velocity and pressure fields in complex pore spaces [5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19].…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In this analysis,  L = 1.0 m and  T = 0.1 m are assumed because dispersivities are from 10 -2 to 1 cm for laboratory experiments and range from 10 -1 to 10 2 m for tracer test in the more heterogeneous porous materials typically encountered in the field [12]. D 0 is ignored in respect of high velocity.…”
Section: +mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Hence the magnitude of transverse dispersivity is directly associated not only with the shape of plume but also with the attenuation of tracer concentration. Laboratory values of the ratio reported in the literature range from 0Ð04 to 0Ð2 (Anderson, 1979;Freeze and Cherry, 1979;Klotz et al, 1980). In contrast, field values obtained from natural gradient dispersion tests have been as low as 0Ð002 (Jensen et al, 1993) and as high as 0Ð1 (Moltyaner and Killey, 1988a).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…As an alternative, a laboratory experiment was used to acquire dispersive parameters, and its results scaled upward to the field regime. Laboratory column tests in combination with field tracer tests have been performed in the past to investigate the applicability of laboratory-derived dispersive parameters to field conditions (Klotz et al, 1980), to examine the scale-dependent nature of dispersive parameters (Pickens and Grisak, 1981) and to compare laboratory results with field values (Taylor et al, 1987). However, the early works (Dagan, 1986;Gelhar, 1986) showed that the field-scale macrodispersion is affected by parameters including the integral scale of the log-conductivity and variance and thus cannot be assessed from the laboratory-scale experiment, which provides only a local dispersion.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%