Lancaster EPrints

Comparison of methodological uncertainty within permeability measurements.

Chappell, Nick A. and Lancaster, James W. (2007) Comparison of methodological uncertainty within permeability measurements. Hydrological Processes, 21 (18). pp. 2504-2514. ISSN 0885-6087

Full text not available from this repository.

Abstract

Permeability measurements are critical to the calculation of water-flow within hillslopes. Despite this, errors in permeability measurements are often ignored, and can be very large particularly in disturbance-sensitive gley soils. This work compares the uncertainties associated with six field methods of permeametry applied to a gleyed soil in upland Britain. Slug tests, constant-head borehole permeametry, and falling-head borehole permeametry were undertaken on established piezometers. Additionally, ring permeametry and two types of trench tests were evaluated. Method-related uncertainty due to proximity of impeding layers of high sorptivity soils produces under- and over-estimates of permeability by a factor of up to 0Ð2 and 5, respectively. This uncertainty band is smaller than the observed effects of anisotropy and temporal variability. Had smearing and soil-ring leakage errors not been minimized, the methodological uncertainties would have been so large that they would have distorted the true spatial field of permeability and its estimated impact on the balance of vertical and lateral flow.

Item Type: Article
Journal or Publication Title: Hydrological Processes
Uncontrolled Keywords: borehole ; error analysis ; gley ; hydraulic conductivity ; permeability ; permeametry
Subjects: G Geography. Anthropology. Recreation > GE Environmental Sciences
Departments: Faculty of Science and Technology > Lancaster Environment Centre
ID Code: 4390
Deposited By: Dr Nick A. Chappell
Deposited On: 12 Mar 2008 16:29
Refereed?: Yes
Published?: Published
Last Modified: 26 Jul 2012 18:10
Identification Number:
URI: http://eprints.lancs.ac.uk/id/eprint/4390

Actions (login required)

View Item