首页> 外文期刊>Ground Water Monitoring & Remediation >A Comparison of Tools and Methods for Estimating Groundwater-Surface Water Exchange
【24h】

A Comparison of Tools and Methods for Estimating Groundwater-Surface Water Exchange

机译:估算地表水交换量的工具和方法的比较

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
获取外文期刊封面目录资料

摘要

A comparison of tools for measuring discharge rates in a sandy streambed was conducted along a transect near the north bank of the Grindsted angstrom (stream), Denmark. Four tools were evaluated at six locations spaced 3 m apart in the stream: mini-piezometers, streambed point velocity probes (SBPVPs), temperature profilers, and seepage meters. Comparison of the methods showed that all identified a similar trend of low to high groundwater discharges moving westward along the transect. Furthermore, it was found that the differences between discharges estimated from Darcy calculations (using the mini-pizometers), and SBPVPs were not statistically different from zero, at the 90% confidence level. Seepage meter estimates were consistently lower than those of the other two methods, but compared more reasonably with the application of a correction factor of 1.7, taken from the literature. In contrast, discharges estimated from temperature profiling (to a depth of 40 cm) were found to be about an order of magnitude less than those determined with the other methods, possibly due to interferences from horizontal hyporheic flow. Where the various methods produced statistically different discharge estimations at the same location, it is hypothesized that the differences arose from method-specific sources of bias, including installation depths. On the basis of this work, practitioners interested in measuring flow across the groundwater-surface water interface achieve the least variability with seepage meters and the SBPVP. However the accuracy of the seepage meter depended on a calibrated correction factor while that of the SBPVP did not.
机译:沿着丹麦Grindsted埃斯特朗姆河(溪流)北岸附近的样板进行了测量沙质河床排放速率的工具的比较。在河流中相距3 m的六个位置对四种工具进行了评估:微型测井仪,河床点速度探头(SBPVP),温度剖面仪和渗漏计。方法的比较表明,所有方法都确定了沿样条线向西移动的低至高地下水排放趋势。此外,还发现在90%的置信度下,通过达西计算(使用微型比色计)估算的流量与SBPVP之间的差异在统计学上不为零。渗流计的估算值始终低于其他两种方法,但与文献中的校正因子1.7相比更加合理。相反,发现由温度曲线(至40厘米深)估计的流量比其他方法确定的流量小大约一个数量级,这可能是由于水平流水的干扰所致。在各种方法在同一位置产生统计上不同的排放估算的情况下,假设差异是由特定于方法的偏差源引起的,包括安装深度。在这项工作的基础上,对通过地下水-地表水界面测量流量感兴趣的从业人员使用渗流计和SBPVP可以实现最小的可变性。但是,渗水仪的精度取决于校准的校正因子,而SBPVP的精度与校正因子无关。

著录项

  • 来源
    《Ground Water Monitoring & Remediation》 |2020年第1期|24-34|共11页
  • 作者单位

    Univ Kansas Dept Geol Lindley Hall Room 215 1475 Jayhawk Blvd Lawrence KS 66045 USA|Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP 2555 Grand Blvd Kansas City MO 64108 USA;

    Univ Kansas Dept Geol Lindley Hall Room 215 1475 Jayhawk Blvd Lawrence KS 66045 USA;

    Tech Univ Denmark Dept Environm Engn Bygningstorvet Bldg 115 DK-2800 Lyngby Denmark;

  • 收录信息
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类
  • 关键词

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号