A method for the in-situ determination of the hydraulic conductivity of gravels as used in constructed wetlands for wastewater treatment

2009 ◽  
Vol 5 (1-3) ◽  
pp. 257-266 ◽  
Author(s):  
P.R. Knowles ◽  
P.A. Davies
Keyword(s):  
Wastewater Treatment ◽  
Hydraulic Conductivity ◽  
Constructed Wetlands

scholarly journals Laboratory and In Situ Determination of Hydraulic Conductivity and Their Validity in Transient Seepage Analysis

Water ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (8) ◽  
pp. 1131
Author(s):  
Soonkie Nam ◽  
Marte Gutierrez ◽  
Panayiotis Diplas ◽  
John Petrie
Keyword(s):  
Hydraulic Conductivity ◽  
Field Measurements ◽  
Natural Soil ◽  
In Situ Tests ◽  
Seepage Analysis ◽  
Soil Deposits ◽  
Seepage Modeling ◽  
Sample Disturbance

This paper critically compares the use of laboratory tests against in situ tests combined with numerical seepage modeling to determine the hydraulic conductivity of natural soil deposits. Laboratory determination of hydraulic conductivity used the constant head permeability and oedometer tests on undisturbed Shelby tube and block soil samples. The auger hole method and Guelph permeameter tests were performed in the field. Groundwater table elevations in natural soil deposits with different hydraulic conductivity values were predicted using finite element seepage modeling and compared with field measurements to assess the various test results. Hydraulic conductivity values obtained by the auger hole method provide predictions that best match the groundwater table’s observed location at the field site. This observation indicates that hydraulic conductivity determined by the in situ test represents the actual conditions in the field better than that determined in a laboratory setting. The differences between the laboratory and in situ hydraulic conductivity values can be attributed to factors such as sample disturbance, soil anisotropy, fissures and cracks, and soil structure in addition to the conceptual and procedural differences in testing methods and effects of sample size.

Determination of hydraulic conductivity as a function of depth and water content for soil in situ

Soil Research ◽  
1965 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 1 ◽  
Author(s):  
CW Rose ◽  
WR Stern ◽  
JE Drummond
Keyword(s):  
Hydraulic Conductivity ◽  
Water Content ◽  
Soil Water ◽  
Unsaturated Soil ◽  
Soil Profile ◽  
Saturated Soil ◽  
Potential Gradients

A theory is presented to calculate hydraulic conductivity from successive measurements of water content profiles for soil in situ. With unsaturated soil, potential gradients are inferred using moisture characteristics, but with saturated soil these gradients must be measured directly. The weight of overburden can affect in situ soil water suction, and a method for determining this effect is given. The theory was applied to a soil profile with marked changes in moisture characteristics and texture, and conductivity was determined for several depths as a function of water content.

scholarly journals Hydraulic Experiments for Determination of In-situ Hydraulic Conductivity of Submerged Sediments

2015 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Bong-Joo Lee ◽  
Ji-Hoon Lee ◽  
Heesung Yoon ◽  
Eunhee Lee
Keyword(s):  
Hydraulic Conductivity

Determination of Hydrogeological Parameters of Aquifer Using the Air Compressor Pumping

2013 ◽  
Vol 448-453 ◽  
pp. 3989-3992
Author(s):  
Xue Jiang ◽  
Xiu Juan Liang ◽  
Chang Lai Xiao ◽  
Chuan Du ◽  
Zhong Kai Wang
Keyword(s):  
Hydraulic Conductivity ◽  
Water Level ◽  
Oil Shale ◽  
Pumping Test ◽  
Comprehensive Analysis ◽  
Graphic Method ◽  
Air Compressor ◽  
Hydrogeological Parameters

When the buried depth of water level is very large, the air compressor is used in pumping test. In the limited conditions, the value of the water level was not measured, but the recovery value of water level could be measured. In this case, the sp value of the water level drawdown was not able to be measured accurately when the pumping test stopped. So the hydraulic conductivity of aquifer could only be determined according to the linear graphic method of the water level recovery test. However, water level recovery characteristics of each period were not the same, and the raising rate of water level were not equal. Thus, there was a deviation when the hydraulic conductivity was solved with the linear graphic method. According to the existing data, the thesis combined the water level recovery fitting of the entire curve fitting with Dupuit formula of artesian well, determining the sp value and hydrogeological parameters of aquifer. After comprehensive analysis, the parameters obtained are more reasonable, which can provide a good reference for in-situ mining of oil shale in this area.

An assessment of the single-head analysis for the constant head well permeameter

1992 ◽  
Vol 72 (4) ◽  
pp. 489-501 ◽  
Author(s):  
W. D. Reynolds ◽  
G. C. Topp ◽  
S. R. Vieira
Keyword(s):  
Hydraulic Conductivity ◽  
Soil Texture ◽  
Soil Structure ◽  
Geometric Mean ◽  
Field Method ◽  
Silty Clay ◽  
Constant Head ◽  
The Many

An in-situ constant head well permeameter (CHWP) method employing three or more ponded heads per well was used to establish relationships between field-saturated hydraulic conductivity (Kfs), matric flux potential [Formula: see text], the alpha parameter (α*), soil texture, and soil structure. The relationships were then used to evaluate a single-head CHWP technique which employs representative mean α* values in the determination of Kfs and [Formula: see text]. The measurements were made at several depths on four soils which ranged in texture from loamy sand to silty clay, and in structure from single grain to strong, fine subangular blocky. The Kfs and [Formula: see text] results obtained from the multiple-head CHWP measurements were found to be highly variable within and between soils, yielding within-soil ranges as high as 3.5 orders of magnitude and standard deviation factors (SDF) as high as 5.1. The geometric mean (GM) Kfs and [Formula: see text] values were also highly variable between soils, but they were controlled primarily by soil structure rather than by soil texture or other factors. The α* values, on the other hand, were relatively consistent both within and between soils, yielding an overall SDF of only 1.2 and an overall GM of 11 m−1. Use of α* = 11 m−1 in the single-head CHWP technique yielded Kfs and [Formula: see text] values which were usually accurate to within a factor of 2, and often accurate to within ±25%. These levels of accuracy are within acceptable limits for a field method, considering the many potential sources of error and the extreme range and variability of Kfs and [Formula: see text] normally encountered in the field. Key words: Constant head well permeameter, hydraulic conductivity, matric flux potential, alpha parameter, soil texture, soil structure, single-head analysis

Simple in situ determination of hydraulic conductivity by power function descriptions of drainage

1981 ◽  
Vol 17 (4) ◽  
pp. 1109-1114 ◽  
Author(s):  
She-Kong Chong ◽  
Richard E. Green ◽  
Lajpat R. Ahuja
Keyword(s):  
Hydraulic Conductivity ◽  
Power Function
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document