Tracer vs. Pressure Wave Velocities Through Unsaturated Saprolite - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

About This Presentation
Title:

Tracer vs. Pressure Wave Velocities Through Unsaturated Saprolite

Description:

Advection Dispersion Equation. for Pressure Waves. is the fluid pressure head ... A hydraulic advection-diffusion equation closely predicts observed pressure responses ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:21
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 33
Provided by: TRasm
Category:

less

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Tracer vs. Pressure Wave Velocities Through Unsaturated Saprolite


1
Tracer vs. Pressure Wave VelocitiesThrough
Unsaturated Saprolite
  • Todd C. Rasmussen
  • Associate Professor of Hydrology
  • The University of Georgia, Athens
  • www.hydrology.uga.edu

2
(No Transcript)
3
Configuration for Intact Saprolite Column
  • Depth (cm)
  • Saprolite surface 0
  • TDR probe 4
  • Tensiometer 7
  • TDR probe 10
  • Suction lysimeter 13
  • TDR probe 16
  • Tensiometer 19
  • TDR probe 22
  • Suction lysimeter 25
  • TDR probe 28
  • Tensiometer 31
  • TDR probe 34
  • Ceramic plate 38

4
Representative Saprolite Properties
  • Particle sizes sand 0.66 g/g
  • silt 0.21 g/g
  • clay 0.13 g/g
  • Bulk density 1.25 g/cm3
  • Porosity 0.5283 cm3/cm3
  • Field saturated K 25.1 cm/day
  • Lab saturated K 27.3 cm/day

5
(No Transcript)
6
Chloride Tracer Responses- Columns 1 and 2 -
  • z ? v ne
  • cm days cm/d
  • 1 13 2.17 6.00 3.8
  • 25 7.99 3.13 7.3
  • 2 13 3.50 3.72 5.9
  • 25 9.89 2.53 8.7
  • 38 18.64 2.04 10.8

7
Possible Explanations for Rapid Unsaturated
Transport
  • Preferential flow
  • Bypass flow
  • Macropore flow
  • Fracture flow
  • Boundary layer flow
  • Mobile zone flow
  • Finger flow
  • Funnel flow
  • Media heterogeneities
  • Ion exclusion
  • Colloid transport

8
Experimental Findings
  • A large saprolite core was used for an
    unsaturated flow and Cl- tracer experiment
  • The tracer traveled four times more quickly than
    homogeneous flow predicts
  • Unsaturated conditions were maintained using
    short irrigation pulses, 0.6 cm3/s
  • The pressure pulses traveled 1000 times more
    rapidly than expected.

9
(No Transcript)
10
Irrigation Schedules
  • ID Spray Interval
    Duration Flux
  • sec min hours
    cm/day
  • 1 A 5 40 9 6 0.229
  • B 5 20 18 6
  • 2 A 5 40 18 12 0.221
  • B 5 20 29 9.67

Spray rate 0.6 cm3/s
11
(No Transcript)
12
  • ID Duration Interval Duration Flux
  • sec min hours cm/day
  • 3 A1 2 10 6 1 0.071
  • A2 2 20 3 1
  • A3 2 30 2 1
  • A4 2 60 1 1
  • A5 2 120 1 2
  • B1 1 10 6 1
  • B2 1 20 3 1
  • B3 1 30 2 1
  • B4 1 60 1 1
  • B5 1 120 1 2
  • C1 3 20 3 1
  • C2 3 40 3 2
  • C3 3 60 1 1
  • C4 3 120 1 2

13
Types of Velocities
  • Darcian flux (velocity)
  • q - K ?h
  • Fluid (transport) velocity
  • v q / ?
  • Kinematic (pressure wave) velocity
  • c dq / d?

14
(No Transcript)
15
Unit Gradient Formulation ?h 0, 0, -1
  • Darcian flux q K
  • Fluid velocity v K / ?
  • Kinematic velocity c dK / d?
  • Kinematic ratio k c / v
  • d (ln K) / d (ln ?)

16
(No Transcript)
17
Moisture Characteristic Curves
  • Brooks - Corey ? 0.6465 ? 6
  • van Genuchten ? 0.6465 1 - (1 - ?7)0.14302
  • Broadbridge-White
  • ? 52 1 - 1/? - ln (10.3 - ?) / ? (10.3 -
    1) / 10.3
  • where ? (? - ?r ) / (?s - ?r ) is the
    relative saturation

18
(No Transcript)
19
(No Transcript)
20
Advection Dispersion Equation for Pressure Waves
  • ? is the fluid pressure head
  • c dK / d? is the kinematic wave velocity
  • D K / Cp is the hydraulic diffusivity
  • Cp d?/d? is the specific water capacity

21
Pressure Response to Spike Input
  • Co is the magnitude of the input

22
Peak Wave Velocity
  • w is the wave peak velocity
  • tp is the time of peak at depth z
  • ? c z / D is the hydraulic Peclet Number

23
Effect of Hydraulic Peclet Number
  • ? ltlt 1 is dominated by diffusion
  • ? gtgt 1 is dominated by a kinematic wave

24
Fluid Pressure Responses- Column 3 -
  • z ?p tp w D Cp
  • cm cm min cm/d cm2/d cm-1
  • 7 15.28 5.08 1,983 2,314 30.7e-6
  • 17 9.91 6.75 3,627 10,276 6.9e-6
  • 24 5.94 9.42 3,670 14,680 4.8e-6
  • 34 2.35 18.17 2,695 15,272 4.6e-6

25
(No Transcript)
26
Conclusions
  • The effective transport porosity of saprolite is
    less than the total porosity
  • This leads to at least a four-fold increase in
    the solute velocity relative to that predicted by
    homogeneous flow
  • The pressure wave velocity is even faster, about
    1000 times greater than the darcian flux
  • A hydraulic advection-diffusion equation closely
    predicts observed pressure responses
  • The best fit occurs with a small specific water
    capacity, Cp d? / d?

27
Implications
  • Solute Transport
  • Consistent with other studies, saprolite from the
    Georgia Piedmont shows preferential solute
    transport
  • Use of the total porosity to predict solute
    transport underestimates solute travel times
  • Fluid Pressure
  • Rapid pressure waves are associated with surface
    perturbations
  • These have attributes of displacement (piston)
    flow
  • Use of pressure responses overestimates solute
    travel times

28
Unsaturated Fractured Rock Hydraulic Properties
29
(No Transcript)
30
(No Transcript)
31
Galileo Number
  • Dimensionless number, ratio of two forces

32
Hydraulic Conductivity
  • The unsaturated hydraulic conductivity is
  • and the saturated hydraulic conductivity is
  • which is just the Kozeny-Carman Equation
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
About PowerShow.com