2011
DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2011.03.017
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The impact of storm events on a riverbed system and its hydraulic conductivity at a site of induced infiltration

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
27
0

Year Published

2011
2011
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 46 publications
(28 citation statements)
references
References 32 publications
1
27
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In these instances, flood waves will more easily be able to resuspend and remove the clogging particles, thereby regenerating bed infiltration rates to some degree. Levy et al (2011) estimated a recovery of the hydraulic conductivity by a factor of 1.5 (from 31 to 47 % compared to the hydraulic conductivity of the media before clogging).…”
Section: Clogging and Self-cleansing In Rbfmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…In these instances, flood waves will more easily be able to resuspend and remove the clogging particles, thereby regenerating bed infiltration rates to some degree. Levy et al (2011) estimated a recovery of the hydraulic conductivity by a factor of 1.5 (from 31 to 47 % compared to the hydraulic conductivity of the media before clogging).…”
Section: Clogging and Self-cleansing In Rbfmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Hubbs (2006b) reported a minimum shear stress (during low-flow conditions) of 0.2 N m −2 and a maximum shear stress of 9.16 N m −2 (during high-flow conditions) in the Ohio River at Louisville, Kentucky. While flood events may stimulate riverbed renewal by streambed scouring as a result of shear forces, lowflow periods may promote the sedimentation of suspended solids at the riverbed (Levy et al, 2011;Stuyfzand et al, 2006). However, Schubert (2002) stated that flood events might also induce riverbed clogging due to the higher concentration of suspended solids and a higher gradient between the river level and the water table of the aquifer.…”
Section: Interface Renewal By Scouringmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…As the streambed K v measurements are a point measurement in space, and the measurements during different sampling times were not carried out exactly at the same location, there is the risk that temporal variability of streambed K v at the same location may not be entirely accurate and has some uncertainty, as small local heterogeneity may produce greater changes of streambed K v . Nevertheless, many studies have also stated that temporal variability in K v value should be predominantly associated with several factors, including erosion/deposition process, bioturbation, porosity, clogging, and changes in water viscosity [5,14,21]. These mechanisms can act together, therefore a better understanding of these hydrological environment still requires research.…”
Section: Temporal Variation Of Streambed K V and Grain Sizementioning
confidence: 99%
“…Seepage meters have measured the flux between ground-water and streams (e.g., Cey et al 1998) and lakes (e.g., Woessner and Sullivan 1984;Shaw and Prepas 1990). When using seepage meters in streams, care must be taken to protect the bags from head loss due to flowing water over the bags (Murdoch and Kelly 2003;Libelo and MacIntyre 1994;Levy et al 2011).…”
Section: Small-scale and Hydrometric Measurementsmentioning
confidence: 99%