2004
DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-6584.2004.t01-7-.x
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Estimation of Hydraulic Conductivity in an Alluvial System Using Temperatures

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
8
0

Year Published

2008
2008
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 74 publications
(8 citation statements)
references
References 19 publications
0
8
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Values of riverbed K c were chosen at the higher end of those reported for semiarid riverbed sediments (1.0EÀ6 to 1E0 m/d or 1.0EÀ11 to 1.0EÀ5 m/s) which represent poorly sorted heterogeneous cobbles and gravels (Aqtesolv, 2016;Geotechdata, 2008;Taylor et al, 2013). We chose two values for aquifer conductivity K a (1.0EÀ4 and 3EÀ4, m/s) based on previous estimates for our site (Su et al, 2004;Zhang et al, 2011). The choice of K a then constrained our choices for K c because we had to ensure that two criteria were met: (1) modeled seepage generally matched that found at the field site ( Figure S2c), and (2) to fulfill the criteria for disconnection ) since evidence for disconnection was observed at the site from infiltration and geophysical data (Newcomer et al, 2016;Ulrich et al, 2015).…”
Section: Riverbed Sediment Characteristics and Their Control On Subsumentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Values of riverbed K c were chosen at the higher end of those reported for semiarid riverbed sediments (1.0EÀ6 to 1E0 m/d or 1.0EÀ11 to 1.0EÀ5 m/s) which represent poorly sorted heterogeneous cobbles and gravels (Aqtesolv, 2016;Geotechdata, 2008;Taylor et al, 2013). We chose two values for aquifer conductivity K a (1.0EÀ4 and 3EÀ4, m/s) based on previous estimates for our site (Su et al, 2004;Zhang et al, 2011). The choice of K a then constrained our choices for K c because we had to ensure that two criteria were met: (1) modeled seepage generally matched that found at the field site ( Figure S2c), and (2) to fulfill the criteria for disconnection ) since evidence for disconnection was observed at the site from infiltration and geophysical data (Newcomer et al, 2016;Ulrich et al, 2015).…”
Section: Riverbed Sediment Characteristics and Their Control On Subsumentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Streambed flow processes were analyzed using TOUGH2 to examine the pattern of pumping-induced desaturation beneath the streambed along the Russian River, California . The model calibration relied on 1-D and 2-D heatbased estimates of hydraulic conductivities for shallower sediments on the basis of VS2DH simulations [Su et al, 2004], to constrain seepage and hydraulic parameters within the 3-D TOUGH2 model. Most recently TOUGH2 has been successfully used for analyzing streambed fluxes beneath the Consumnes River, CA , where the complex streambed heterogeneity and nonperennial streamflow patterns were modeled using streambed temperature data and the versatility embodied in TOUGH2.…”
Section: Physical Simulation Modelsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…[56] The range and robust nature of the types of temperature measurement devices, especially in terms of resolution and spatial coverage, and a choice of heat and water transport models, create opportunities to broaden heat tracing investigations beyond gross accounting of stream/ streambed water exchanges for comparison with nearby seepage meters [Su et al, 2004] or reach-scale differential streamflow measurements [Thomas et al, 2000]. Creative deployment of temperature equipment holds great practical promise for the use of heat as a tracer to catalog and potentially predict the diverse spatial and temporal patterns of streambed water flow critical to fields ranging from stream ecology to water-treatment plant operations.…”
Section: Summary and Future Directionsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In sufficiently permeable formations, where heat transport processes are dominated by advection, coupling the solution of the heat propagation problem with a groundwater flow model allows constraining hydraulic parameters and fluxes estimations 10 , 14 , either using analytical 15 , 16 or numerical methods. Some early studies 17 , 18 demonstrated that combining observed water levels with natural groundwater temperature fluctuations, measured by point sensors in piezometers, proved to be an effective means for estimating hydraulic conductivity through numerical model calibration. Since aquifer hydraulic properties are likely to vary much more than the rock and pore fluid thermal properties 19 , these latter do not have necessarily to be involved in the calibration procedure 10 .…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%