Comparision Preferential Flow of Solute in Porous Media With Darcy's Flow (MSC Thesis by Indra)

TRIBHUVAN UNIVERSITY
INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERING
PULCHOWK CAMPUS
DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

Thesis No. 065/MSWSHD/R/905/155
COMPARISION OF PREFERENTIAL FLOW OF SOLUTE IN POROUS MEDIA WITH DARCY'S FLOW
BY INDRA NARAYAN SHRESTHA
IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE IN SUSTAINABLE WATER SANITATION HEALTH AND DEVELOPMENT
September, 2010 Lalitpur, Nepal
Master of Science Thesis (Thesis No. 065/MSWSHD/R/905/155)
COMPARISION OF PREFERENTIAL FLOW OF SOLUTE IN POROUS MEDIA WITH DARCY'S FLOW
By INDRA NARAYAN SHRESTHA
A Thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirement for the degree of Master of Science in Sustainable Water Sanitation Health and Development
Examination Committee: Prof. Dr. Bhagwan Ratna Kansakar Assoc. Prof. Iswar Man Amatya Dr. Madhav Narayan Shrestha Chairman / Supervisor Co-ordinator External Examiner
Tribhuvan University Institute of Engineering, Pulchowk Campus Department of Civil Engineering
September, 2010 Lalitpur, Nepal
ii
CERTIFICATE
This is to certify that this thesis work entitled Comparison of Preferential Flow of Solute in Porous Media with Darcy's Flow submitted by Mr. Indra Narayan Shrestha is carried out under my supervision and guidance and fulfilling the nature and standard required for the partial fulfilment of the degree of Master of Science in Sustainable Water Sanitation Health and Development. The work embodied in this thesis has not been submitted elsewhere for a degree.
(Prof. Dr. Bhagwan Ratna Kansakar) Supervisor Department of Civil Engineering Institute of Engineering Pulchowk Campus
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I wish to express my deep sense of gratitude and sincere thanks to Prof. Dr. Bhagwan Ratna Kansakar for his excellent guidance, constant inspiration, and all round assistance throughout this thesis work. I would also like to thank Environmental laboratory in charge Mrs. Prabha Karmacharya for her help. I am thankful to my elder brother Mr. Surya Narayan Shrestha and his mechanical workshop Shrestha Engineering Works for preparing the lab model and his patience to modify as per the research requirement.
iv
ABSTRACT
Vertical flow of solute in porous media (preferential flow) is studied and compared with Darcy's flow. The methodology used for the study is experimental. The laboratory model used is similar to Darcy apparatus with slight modification. The study has compare measured time of first reach of solute with computed time based on Darcy's average velocity. . The laboratory model consists of 150 mm diameter HDPE pipe of 750 mm height filled with uniform sand. Nine sets of experiment is conducted with 3 types of sand (D10 = 0.6 mm and C u 1.42, D 10 = 0.11 mm and Cu 1.55, D 10 = 0.3 mm and Cu 1.4) and 3 types of brine concentration (5 %, 10 %, 20 % by wt. brine solution). Brine solution is found to be 1.13 to 1.84 times faster than average velocity of flow as a result of preferential flow.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter Title COVER PAGE TITLE PAGE CERTIFICATE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ABSTRACT TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES LIST OF TABLES LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 2.0 Background Rationale Objective of the Study Limitations of the Study Organization of Report Page I II III IV V VI VIII IX X 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 3 4 5 7 7
LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1 Theory and Concepts on Preferential Flow 2.1.1 Preferential Flow Classification 2.1.2 Preferential Flow Modelling 2.1.3 Preferential Flow and Pesticides/Toxics 2.1.4 Preferential Flow and Manure, Pathogens and Nutrients 2.1.5 Development of Soil Water Samplers to Measure Preferential Flow of Water and Solutes 2.2 2.3 2.4 Darcy's Flow Concepts Wall Correction in Laboratory Model Summary of Literature Review
7 8 9 9 10 10 11 11
3.0
METHODOLOGY 3.1 3.2 3.3 Laboratory Model Assumptions Data Collection
vi
3.4 4.0
Data Analysis
11 12 12 12 13 13 18 18 18 19 22
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 Sieve Analysis Hydraulic Conductivity Calculation (Water) Hydraulic Conductivity Calculation (Water with Salt Water) Comparison of Observed First Reach Time with Average Velocity
5.0
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 5.1 5.2 Conclusions Recommendations
REFERENCES APPENDICES
vii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 3.1 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 Title Schematic diagram of the model Comparision of measured time with Darcy's time for sand 1 Comparision of measured time with Darcy's time for sand 2 Comparision of measured time with Darcy's time for sand 3 Comparision of measured time with Darcy's time for 5 % brine solution Comparision of measured time with Darcy's time for 10 % brine solution Comparision of measured time with Darcy's time for 20 % brine solution Page 10 14 14 15 15 16 16
viii
LIST OF TABLES
Table Title 3.1 Comparision of hydraulic Conductivity Page 17
ix
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
A ADR Cu d D d d10 H HDPE Ks Kw L m MACRO min n h ne Q q s s.g SWAP TRM v V Vw Ws Area of section perpendicular to the flow direction Advection dispersion model with reaction term Uniformity coefficient of sand Diameter of sand Diameter of the model Diameter of cylinder Mean grain size of sand Head difference High Density Polyethylene Hydraulic conductivity of solute Hydraulic conductivity of water Length Meter Macropore parameter test model Minute Total porosity Hydraulic gradient Effective porosity Discharge Darcy velocity Second Specific gravity of sand particle Soil water atomosphere and plant model Two region preferencial flow model Mean velocity of flow Volume of cylinder Volume of water Weight of dry sand
CHAPTER I
1.0
1.1
INTRODUCTION
Background
Contamination of groundwater with agricultural chemicals is becoming a serious threat. Modern agriculture relies on a broad range of fertilizers and pesticides to assure reliable crop yields. Although the amount of chemicals required can be reduced, a total ban is not currently feasible. A long-term hazard is involved: once the chemicals get into groundwater, they may remain there for decades. Preferential flow allows much faster contaminant transport and creates significant consequences for groundwater quality and has direct impacts on drinking water and human health. 1.2 Rationale
Pesticides and other agrochemicals are common ly used in developing countries like Nepal to increase productivity. Agriculture land near river courses is the most fertile land where the ground water table is high from ground surface. The soil type is generally sandy soil. Among various types of agrochemicals the most critical one susceptible to pollute shallow groundwater is the one which do not react with the sandy soil. The research on the movement of chemical in soil is very limited. Hence, the detailed study is required to determine the preferential flow of solute in the porous media and compare with the Darcy's average flow of water. 1.3 Objective of the Study
The objective of the study is to determine the degree of rapidness of downward movement of water and solute and compare with theoretical Darcy model. 1.4 Limitations of the Study
The study carried out has following limitations: The laboratory model is small. Field verification has not been performed. The study is limited to the movement of brine solution in the sand used in model within laboratory condition.
1.5
Organization of Report
This report is organized into five chapters as follows: Chapter I briefly provide the importance of the topic, rational of the study, objective of the study and limitations of the study. Chapter II deals with review of the literature related to the study. Chapter III details the methodology used to carry out this study. Chapter IV includes result and discussions. Chapter V Presents conclusions and recommendations for further study.
Appendices A to F are attached at the end of the report which detail the data collected during the experimental study, analysis of data and photographs of the laboratory model.
CHAPTER II
2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW
Literatures has been collected and reviewed to get the basic idea on preferential flow and research progress made on the proposed field of study. Some of them are included in this chapter. 2.1 Theory and Concepts on Preferential Flow
Preferential flow refers to the uneven and often rapid movement of water and solutes through porous media, typically soil, characterized by regions of enhanced flux such that a small fraction of media (such as wormholes, root holes, cracks) participates in most of the flow, allowing much faster transport of contaminants, including pesticides, nutrients, trace metals, and manurial-pathogens. This creates significant consequences for groundwater quality (http://soilandwater.bee.cornell.edu/Research/pfweb/educators/intro /why.htm). Preferred pathways in soils may result from biological and/or geological activity (e.g., macro-pores, earthworm burrows, channels consisting of highly conductive media) or from farm management practice (e.g., conservation tillage). Preferential ow-paths are also found in homogeneous and layered sandy soils due to the instability of the wetting front. Such preferred paths may transmit water and its solutes at higher velocities than those predicted by Darcys theory (Wallach and Steenhuis., 1998). Glass R. J. et al., (1991) formulated diameter of three dimensional fingers using linear stability theory then compared with the theoretical result. Tensiometry is demonstrated to be a practical method of obtaining data with high temporal and spatial resolution for the study of dynamic flow fields and facilities testing of theoretical results for unstable flow fields (Selker J. S. et. al., (1992 a). Selker J. S. et al., (1992 b) demonstrated experimentally that fingering can be prominent feature of flow through homogeneous soil systems under continuous nonponding infiltration. Fingers in homogeneous coarse grained soils form instability in the wetting front and result in bypass flow which shortens the residence time in vadose zone. Once formed persists over a long period, the tip of the fringes of the fingers is on the wetting curve,
while the remaining core of the finger is on a drying branch. This explains why large differences in moisture content can co-exist (Liu Y. et. al., 1994). Soil water hysteresis model can be used to explain a fingered flow pattern is uniform sand with different initial moisture contents (Liu Y. et. al., 1995). The pressure and water content measurement (DiCarlo et. al., 1999) show that the nonuniform moisture content exists even when the potentials are equalized horizontally as a result of soil's pressure-saturation relationship. Once the soil is wet enough, the remainder of water movement takes place in liquid films. The wetter portions of the soil can be at a lower potential than the drier portions, resulting in a horizontal driving force for a flow of water from the drier to the wetter soil. Preferential flow on hill-slopes takes place via macropores. These are formed either by biological or mechanical processes, and they come in a wide range of sizes, directional orientation, and continuity. Field studies have shown that the continuity is a dynamic state variable, with it increasing as the degree of wetness of the soil increases. Field experiments have demonstrated that under conditions commonly found in the field that macropores are able to deliver significant quantities of water to stream-flow during rainfall of snowmelt (Nieber J. L., 2005). 2.1.1 Preferential Flow Classification
Types of preferential flow (Merdun H., 2005) are as follows: a) Macro-pore Flow In macro-pore flow, water and chemicals flow through naturally-formed channels such as cracks, plant roots, worm holes, and voids between peds. The flow of water through a system of large pores allows fast velocities and by passes the soil matrix. b) Fingering (unstable) Flow In a sandy soil where a less conductive fine sand layer is located above a coarse sand layer, the wetting front can become unstable and brake into fingers. c) Funnel Flow In the funnel flow, water is directed into fewer channels on inclined surfaces where fine sand layer is located above fine or coarse sand layer.
2.1.2
Preferential Flow Modeling:
A simplified two layered model considering near surface (mixing layer) and lower profile, for the layer near the surface, the solute concentration in the layer is equal to that of percolating (including preferentially moving water). In the lower profile, the flow is partitioned between matrix and preferential flow. The solute concentration of the matrix flow is characterized by the condition near the outlet point where as the preferential flow is represented by the solute concentration in the mixing layer. The theory that is tested with three widely varying independent data sets gives good insight into some of the important factors in the loss of fertilizers and pesticides to groundwater shortly after application via preferential flow (Steenhuis, T.S., et. al., 1994). A preferential solute transport model developed simulates the effects of natural heterogeneities in the soil layer by identifying paths responsible for the transport of water and solutes. The soil-water hydraulic conductivity function is used to identify these paths and the interaction between these paths are described by mixing functions (Stagnitti F., et. al., 1994). Rimmer A. et al. (1995 b) found optimal wick length for two soil types i.e. 30 to 40 cm wick length for sandy soils and >100 cm wick length for silt loams. Model and experimental results indicate that only a fraction of the field area participates in transport to the macropores. Differences between breakthrough curves from the conventionally tilled and no-till plots are explained well by the mixing of solutes and water in the upper layer (Shalit, G. and T.S. Steenhuis., 1996). Methods that can measure field averaged preferential flow characteristics need to be developed to simulate pesticide concentration in tile lines, (Steenhuis, T. S., et. al., 1997). Rimmer A. et al. (1998) experimentally show that fingered flow of water into an oilsaturated porous medium has similar properties to fingered water flow into dry porous media, but with different length scales, pressure heads, and fluid contents. Theoretical analysis and model simulations indicated that finger formation depends on the shape of the main wetting and main drainage branches of that function. Once fingers are established, hysteresis causes fingers to recur along the same pathways during following rain events. Leaching of hydrophobic substances from these fingered pathways makes the soil with in the pathways more wettable than the surrounding soil. Thus, in the
long term, instability driven fingers might become heterogeneity driven fingers (Ritsema C .J. et. al., 1998). A mathematical model for solute movement in a structured soil with well-defined and continuous preferential paths was developed. The model divides the soil profile into one mobile and one stagnant pore group. For well-structured soils, the mobile pore group consists of a few well-connected pores that conduct the non-reactive solute downward very rapidly. Only a narrow matrix layer of stagnant solute along the interface between the two pore groups takes part in solute exchange with the preferential paths. Due to differences in time scales between convection and chemical transfer, the rate of chemical exchange between the preferential path and the active matrix layer for short and moderate times after chemical application is controlled mainly by the preferential flow concentration and, to lesser extent, by the concentration in the active layer (Rony Wallach and T.S. Steenhuis, 1998). A simple, efficient and effective method of quantifying the level of heterogeneity in soil water percolation and solute elution patterns generated from multiple sample percolation experiments has been developed. The method relies on calculating a heterogeneity index based on estimating two free parameters of the beta-distribution. Using this index, the elution patterns for a number of experiments was compared and contrasted. The index may be a valuable tool in estimating the potential risk of groundwater contamination by the preferential transport of chemicals through the vadose zone (Stagnitti, F., et al. 1999). The process of preferential flow and transport has been incorporated in the well-known SWAP model also, and applied to field data of tracer transport through a water repellent sandy soil in the Netherlands. Results indicate early arrival times of bromide in the subsoil in case preferential flow is taken into account (Ritsema, C.J. et. al., 2001). Using data collected from the multiple sample percolation experiments, Stagnitti, F. et al., (2001) compared the performance of two mathematical models for predicting solute transport, the advection-dispersion model with a reaction term (ADR), and a tworegion preferential flow model transport. Logsdon S. D., (2002) evaluated methods to independently measure macro-pore parameters with the test model MACRO, a transient-state, and two flow domain model. (TRM) suitable for modelling non-equilibrium
2.1.3
Preferential Flow and Pesticides/Toxics
The effect of sludge processing (digested dewatered, pelletized, alkaline-stabilized, composted, and incinerated), soil type and initial soil pH on trace-metal mobility was examined using undisturbed soil columns. Soils tested were Hudson silt-loam (Glossaquic Hapludalf) and Arkport fine sandy-loam (Lamellic Hapludalf), at initial pH levels of 5 and 7 (Richards B. K., et al., 2000). Comparisons of the flow-paths and the bulk soil (comparing dyed and non-dyed sludge plot soils) showed that enhancement of soil metal in and along flow paths in the subsoil below the zone of incorporation is slight where detectable at all (Richands, B. K., et al. 1998). 2.1.4 Preferential Flow and Manure, Pathogens and Nutrients
Liquid manure applied to the soil surface at normal rates, and followed by a precipitation event, can result in bacterial contamination of a sub surface drain in soils which exhibit preferential flow characteristics. The timing of the precipitation event following the liquid manure application will influence the magnitude of the peak concentration of bacteria such as fecal coliforms. Liquid manure which had dried on the surface did not eliminate the further risk of fecal coliforms transport upon rewetting within a 6 day period. An irrigation event on the same day of liquid manure application resulted in a peak concentration of 110,000 colonies/100 ml, and an irrigation 6 days after the manure application still resulted in a peak concentration of 38,000 colonies/100 ml (Geohring, L.D., et al., 1996 ). 2.1.5 Development of Soil Water Samplers to Measure Preferential Flow of Water and Solutes Laboratory tests showed that fibreglass wicks have a relatively small effect on the measurement of contaminant loading. The dispersivity value of the wick was very low, indicating that, when used for sampling from unsaturated soil, fibreglass wick contribute negligibly to the dispersion of solutes. Miscible-displacement tests using Bromide and an adsorbed blue dye applied to fibre glass wicks revealed that the latter has a retardation coefficient of approximately 1.3, a value that is small compared with retardation of blue dye in field soils (Boll, J., et al., 1992).
When pan samplers collected water mainly from macropores, water ux was lognormally distributed. On the other hand, when matrix pores were sampled, the water ux best t the normal distribution (Boll, J., et al., 1997). Rimmer, A., et al. (1995 a) examined how the wick sampler alters the matrix potential, streamlines, and solute concentrations in the native soil (theoretically and experimentally). Model and theory agreed well and showed that the capillary length is similar in the soil and wick. It was found that in many cases solute pulse travel time was affected more by the pressure head changes that occurred at the soil-wick interface than by the flow through the wick. De Rooij, G.H. and F. Stagnitti (2002) suggest a stochastic convective transport process in the high-flow stream tubes, while convectiondispersion is predominant in the lowflow areas. 2.2 Darcy's Flow Concepts
Darcy's law states that the Darcy velocity q in a porous medium is calculated from the head h gradient and hydraulic conductivity K as: .. q. . Where, q with units of volume / time / area, is also known as the specific discharge, or the filtration velocity. The volume of water flowing per unit time through a unit crosssectional area normal to the direction of flow (q = Q/A). .. q. . The average fluid velocity within the pores, called the seepage velocity V, is the Darcy velocity divided by the effective porosity of the medium. h .. q. .
Darcy's law is a simple mathematical statement which neatly summarizes several familiar properties as follows. If there is no pressure gradient over a distance, no flow occurs (this is hydrostatic conditions), If there is a pressure gradient, flow will occur from high pressure towards low pressure (opposite the direction of increasing gradient hence the negative sign in Darcy's law),
The greater the pressure gradient (through the same formation material), the greater the discharge rate, and The discharge rate of fluid will often be different through different formation materials (or even through the same material, in a different direction) even if the same pressure gradient exists in both cases.
2.3
Wall Correction in Laboratory Model
For a cylindrical tube of diameter (D) packed with spheres of diameter (d) increased in average velocity is caused by less packing in wall of the cylinder by the fraction (fw) as per Coulson (Chhabra and Richardson, 1999). .. q . In our context, d = 0.6 mm D = 150 mm fw = 1.0027 Since fw is nearly equal to 1, it can be neglected. 2.4 Summary of literature review
Preferential ow-paths are also found in homogeneous and layered sandy soils due to the instability of the wetting front (Wallach and Steenhuis., 1998). Nieber J. L., (2005) have demonstrated that under field conditions macropores are able to deliver significant quantities of water to stream-flow during rainfall of snowmelt. Soil water hysteresis model can be used to explain a fingered flow pattern is uniform sand with different initial moisture contents (Liu Y. et. al., 1995). Ritsema C .J. et. al., (1998) mentioned soil hysteresis causes fingers to reoccur along the same pathways during following rain events. Considering above, Detail study is required to determine the preferential flow of solute in the porous media and compare with the Darcy's average flow of water.
CHAPTER III
3.0 METHODOLOGY
The methodology used in this research is described in this chapter. The research is based on the experimental study of laboratory model. The data collected during the experiments were analyzed using statistical tools. The conclusions are drawn based on the results of the study. Recommendations have been made for further study also. 3.1 Laboratory model
The laboratory model consists of HDPE pipe of 150 mm diameter and 750 mm height. The HDPE pipe is packed with sand. A PVC bucket of 10 liters volume is used for storing the influent water. Outlet bucket 10 liters capacity is used to collect the effluent water. The schematic diagram of experimental setup is shown in Figure 3.1. The details of the specification of the laboratory models are presented in Appendix A.
Figure 3.1 Schematic diagram of the model

Two set of laboratory models are used at a time. The study has been carried out in three types of sands. The sands used were effective size of 0.6 mm with uniformity coefficient of 1.42 (sand 1), effective size of 0.11 mm with uniformity coefficient of 1.55 (sand 2) and effective size of 0.3 mm with uniformity coefficient of 1.4 (sand 3). The details of seive analysis of sand are presented in Appendix B. The study has been conducted in
10
brine solutions of 5%, 10% and 20% separately. The samples are collected from the bottom of the HDPE pipe to test the chloride content. 3.2 Assumptions
The following assumptions are taken in to account during the study. Outlet head is neglected. Darcy law is considered valid. Flow during sampling is just 1 drop per second which is very small, hence it is neglected. 3.3 Data Collection
The time of first reach of chloride in the sampling point is taken based on the visualization of white color in the test tube when silver nitrate is added using dropper. Time and total amount of water flow are measured. After each set of experiment the sand is cleaned with water to prepare for the next set of experiment. 3.4 Data Analysis
The hydraulic conductivity and average time of reach is calculated based on Darcy equation and are plotted in linear graph. The calculation of hydraulic conductivity for various types of sand at concentrations of brine is presented in detail in Appendix C. The comparison of hydraulic conductivity of water with various types of sands at various concentrations of brine solution is presented in detail in Appendix D. After points are plotted linear of regression using least square is established in excel sheet. The sample of linear regression is shown in Appendix E.
11
CHAPTER IV
4.0
4.1
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Sieve Analysis
Sieve analysis was carried out for all three types of sand used i.e. sand 1, sand 2 and sand 3. 2000 gm of dry sample of sand 1 was taken and sieve analysis was carried out. The sand 1 was found to have effective size (d10) of 0.6 mm with uniformity coefficient of 1.42. Loss of sand during sieving was found to be 0.36 %. Sieve analysis of sand 2 and sand 3 were performed taking 1000 gm of dry sample of each. Sand 2 was found to have effective size (d10) of 0.11 mm with uniformity coefficient of 1.55 while sand 3 was found to have effective size (d 10) of 0.3 mm with uniformity coefficient of 1.4. The loss of sand during sieving was found to be 1.87 % and 1.18 % for sand 2 and sand 3 respectively. Loss of weight of sand after sieve is less than 2%, which can be considered permissible. The details of sieve analysis are presented in Appendix B. 4.2 Hydraulic Conductivity Calculation (Water)
Hydraulic conductivity of water is calculated from data derived from the experimental study. The detail calculation of hydraulic conductivity for various types of sand with various concentration of brine solution is presented in Appendix C. The plots of q versus H/L for various types of sand with various concentration of brine solution are presented in Appendix D. The hydraulic conductivity of water was found to be 0.00238 m/s for sand 1 with 5% brine solution. The plot of q versus H/L showed the regression correlation (R2) of 0.98 indicating its good curve fitting. Similarly hydraulic conductivity of water was found to be 0.002338, 0.002384, 0.0001648, 0.0001943, 0.0001729, 0.003079, 0.002805, 0.002986 m/s for sand 1 with 10% brine solution, sand 1 with 20% brine solution, sand 2 with 5% brine solution, sand 2 with 10% brine solution, sand 2 with 20% brine solution, sand 3 with 5% brine solution, sand 3 with 10% brine solution and sand 3 with 20% brine solution respectively and their regression correlations (R 2) were calculated as 0.96, 0.94, 0.96, 0.93, 0.97, 0.98, 0.96 and 0.99 respectively indicating good curve fitting.
12
4.3
Hydraulic Conductivity Calculation (Water and Salt Water)
Similarly, hydraulic conductivity of brine solution is calculated from data derived from the experimental study. The detail calculation of hydraulic conductivity for various types of sand with various concentration of brine solution is presented in Appendix C. The plots of q versus H/L for various types of sand with various concentration of brine solution are presented in Appendix D. The hydraulic conductivity of brine solution was found to be 0.00246 m/s for sand 1 with 5% brine solution. The plot of q versus H/L showed the regression correlation (R2) of 0.93 indicating its good curve fitting. Similarly hydraulic conductivity of brine solution was found to be 0.00281, 0.00295, 0.000176, 0.0002008, 0.0002535, 0.003056, 0.00308, 0.003377 m/s for sand 1 with 10% brine solution, sand 1 with 20% brine solution, sand 2 with 5% brine solution, sand 2 with 10% brine solution, sand 2 with 20% brine solution, sand 3 with 5% brine solution, sand 3 with 10% brine solution and sand 3 with 20% brine solution respectively and their regression correlations (R2) were calculated as 0.96, 0.97, 0.96, 0.99, 0.90, 0.99, 0.94 and 0.96 respectively indicating good curve fitting. Hydraulic conductivity increased in the presence of salt. 4.4 Comparison of Observed First Reach Time with average velocity
Measured time of reach of solute is compared with time based on Darcy's average velocity in porous media. Solute transfer in the sand is found 1.38 times faster than time based on Darcy's average velocity for sand 1 with 5 % brine solution and its regression correlation (R2) of 0.94. Similarly, Similarly solute transfer in sand is found to be 1.39, 1.84, 1.59, 1.26, 1.16, 1.2, 1.63 and 1.13 faster than time based on Darcy's average velocity for sand 1 with 5 % brine solution, sand 1 with 10% brine solution, sand 1 with 20% brine solution, sand 2 with 5% brine solution, sand 2 with 10% brine solution, sand 2 with 20% brine solution, sand 3 with 5% brine solution, sand 3 with 10% brine solution and sand 3 with 20% brine solution respectively and their regression correlations (R2) were calculated as 0.99, 0.96, 0.91, 0.99, 0.96, 0.91, 0.95 and 0.93. Measured solute travel time is compared with that of Darcy's average velocity as shown in Figure 4.1 for sand of 0.66 mm effective size and uniformity coefficient of 1.42 (i.e. sand 1) at brine concentrations of 5%, 10% and 20%.
13
140 y = 0.7231x - 1.7545 R = 0.9367
120
100 y = 0.72x - 0.0195 R = 0.9897 80 Sand 1 5%

Sand 1 10 % 60
y = 0.5442x + 3.0858 R = 0.955 40
Sand 1 20 % Linear (Sand 1 5%)

Linear (Sand 1 10 %)
Linear (Sand 1 20 %) 20
0 0
-20
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
Figure 4.1 Comparision of measured time with Darcy's time for sand 1
Measured solute travel time for sand 1 is observed to be 1.38 to 1.84 times faster than time based on Darcy's average velocity. Measured solute travel time is compared with that of Darcy's average velocity as shown in Figure 4.2 for sand of 0.11 mm effective size, uniformity coefficient 1.55 (i.e. sand 2) with all three set of brine concentrations of 5%, 10% and 20%.
1000
y = 0.8644x - 62.575 R = 0.9507 800

y = 0.7935x - 9.9986 R = 0.9876 y = 0.63x + 37.826 R = 0.9072
600 Sand 2 5%
Sand 2 10% 400
Sand 2 20% Linear (Sand 2 5%)

Linear (Sand 2 10%)
200
Linear (Sand 2 20%)
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
-200
Measured solute travel time is for sand 2 is observed to be 1.16 to 1.59 times faster than time based on Darcy's average velocity.
14
Measured solute travel time is compared with that of Darcy's average velocity as shown in Figure 4.3 for sand of 0.3 mm effective size and uniformity coefficient of 1.4 (i.e. sand 3) of brine concentration of 5%, 10% and 20%.
70 y = 0.8832x - 5.3154 R = 0.9327
60
50
y = 0.8243x - 3.3604 R = 0.9079 y = 0.6126x + 3.0668 R = 0.9537 Sand 3 5%

Sand 3 10%
40
30
Sand 3 20% Linear (Sand 3 5%)
20
Linear (Sand 3 10%)
Linear (Sand 3 20%) 10
0 0
-10
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Measured solute travel time for sand 3 is observed to be 1.13 to 1.63 times faster than time based on Darcy's average velocity. Measured solute travel time is compared with that of Darcy's average velocity as shown in Figure 4.4 for 5% brine concentration for all three types of sand (i.e. sand 1, sand 2 and sand 3).
900
800
y = 0.63x + 37.826 R = 0.9072
700
600
500
5% Sand 1
5% Sand 2
400
5% Sand 3 Linear (5% Sand 1)

Linear (5% Sand 2)
300
200
Linear (5% Sand 3) y = 0.7231x - 1.7545 R = 0.9367 y = 0.8243x - 3.3604 R = 0.9079

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
100
-100
Figure 4.4 Comparision of measured time with Darcy's time for 5 % brine solution
15
Measured solute travel time for 5% brine solution is observed to be 1.2 to 1.59 times faster than time based on Darcy's average velocity. Measured solute travel time is compared with that of Darcy's average velocity as shown in Figure 4.5 for 10% brine concentration for all three types of sand (i.e. sand 1, sand 2 and sand 3).
700
600
y = 0.7935x - 9.9986 R = 0.9876
500
400
10% Sand 1
10% Sand 2
300
10% Sand 3 Linear (10% Sand 1)
200 y = 0.72x - 0.0195 R = 0.9897

100
Linear (10% Sand 2)
Linear (10% Sand 3)
y = 0.6126x + 3.0668 R = 0.9537 0

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900
-100
Measured solute travel time for 10% brine solution is observed to be 1.26 to 1.63 times faster than time based on Darcy's average velocity. Measured solute travel time is compared with that of Darcy's average velocity as shown in Figure 4.6 for 20% brine concentration for all three types of sand (i.e. sand 1, sand 2 and sand 3).
1000
800
y = 0.8644x - 62.575 R = 0.9507
600
20% Sand 1
20% Sand 2 400 20% Sand 3

Linear (20% Sand 1) y = 0.5442x + 3.0858 R = 0.955
Linear (20% Sand 2) Linear (20% Sand 3)

Linear (20% Sand 3)
200
y = 0.8832x - 5.3154 R = 0.9327 0

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
-200
16
Measured solute travel time for 20% brine solution is 1.13 to 1.84 times faster than time based on Darcy's average velocity. The comparison of hydraulic conductivity of water with and without saltwater for various types of sands under study at the various brine concentration is shown in Table 4.1. The result shows that the solute travel time is faster than Darcy's average velocity in all cases. Table 4.1 Comparison of hydraulic conductivity
Hydraulic Brine Uniformity Effective Media % by coefficient size (D Conductivity of type weight (Cu) water (Kw, m/s ) 10, mm) Sand 1 5 10 20 5 10 20 5 10 20 1.42 0.60 2.380E-03 2.338E-03 2.840E-03 1.648E-04 1.943E-04 1.729E-04 3.079E-03 2.805E-03 2.986E-03
2
Hydraulic Conductivity of water with brine solution (Ks , m/s ) 2.460E-03 2.810E-03 2.950E-03 1.760E-04 2.008E-04 2.535E-04 3.056E-03 3.080E-03 3.377E-03
Faster than Darcy's time (td/tp) 1.38 1.39 1.84 1.59 1.26 1.16 1.20 1.63 1.13
Sand 2
1.55
0.11
Sand 3
1.4
0.30
0.98 0.96 0.94 0.96 0.93 0.97 0.98 0.96 0.99
0.93 0.96 0.97 0.96 0.99 0.9 0.99 0.94 0.96
0.94 0.99 0.96 0.91 0.99 0.96 0.91 0.95 0.93
17
CHAPTER IV
5.0
5.1
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Conclusions
Since solute transfer in the sand used is found to be faster than time based on Darcy average velocity in all cases, preferential flow exists in uniform sand. The following conclusions are deduced. Measured solute travel time is 1.38 to 1.84 times faster than time based on Darcy's average velocity for sand 1(Cu=1.42, D10=0.6 mm). Measured solute travel time is 1.16 to 1.59 times faster than time based on Darcy's average velocity for sand 2(Cu=1.55, D10=0.11 mm). Measured solute travel time is 1.13 to 1.63 times faster than time based on Darcy's average velocity for sand 3(Cu=1.4, D10=0.3 mm). Measured solute travel time is 1.2 to 1.59 times faster than time based on Darcy's average velocity for 5% brine concentration. Measured solute travel time is 1.26 to 1.63 times faster than time based on Darcy's average velocity for 10% brine concentration. Measured solute travel time is 1.13 to 1.84 times faster than time based on Darcy's average velocity for 20% brine concentration. 5.2 Recommendations
The following recommendations are made for further study. It is recommended to use wide range of size of media as well as wide range of uniformity coefficient to know precise relationship with media size and solute concentration. Further investigation considering worm holes and roots on undisturbed sandy soil is recommended.
18
REFERENCES 1. Boll, J., T.S. Steenhuis, and J.S. Selker. 1992. Fiberglass Wicks for Sampling Water and Solutes in the Vadose Zone. Soil Science Society of American Journal 56(3):701707. 2. Boll, J., J.S. Selker, G. Shalit, and T.S. Steenhuis. 1997. Frequency Distribution of Water and Solute Transport Properties Derived from Pan Sampler Data. Water Resources Res. 33(12):2655-2664. 3. Chhabra R.P. and Richardson J.F., (1999). Non Newtonian Flow in Process Industries: A division of Reed Educational and Professional Publishing Ltd, p. 241242, ISBN0750637706. 4. DiCarlo, D.A., T.W.J. Bauters, C.J.G. Darnault, T.S. Steenhuis, and J.-Y. Parlange (1999). Lateral Expansion of Preferential Flow Paths in Sands, Water Resources Research 35: 427-434. 5. De Rooij, G.H. and F.Stagnitti, (2002). Spatial and temporal distribution of solute leaching in heterogeneous soils: analysis and application to multisampler lysimeter data. Journal of Contaminant Hydrology 54:329 346. 6. Geohring L. D., Peter Wright, and Tammo S. Steenhuis (1996). Preferencial Flow of Liquid Manure to Subsurface Drains, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY. 7. Glass, R.J., J.-Y. Parlange, and T.S. Steenhuis (1991). Immiscible Displacement in Porous Media: Stability Analysis of Three-Dimensional, Axisymmetric Disturbances with Application to Gravity-Driven Wetting Front Instability, Water Resources Journal 27(8): 1947-1956. 8. http://soilandwater.bee.cornell.edu/Research/pfweb/educators/intro/why.htm 9. Liu, Y., J.-Y. Parlange, and T.S. Steenhuis (1995). A Soil Water Hysteresis Model for Fingered Flow Data, Water Resources Research 31(9): 2263-2266. 10. Liu, Y., T.S. Steenhuis, and J.-Y. Parlange (1994). Formation and Persistence of Fingered Flow Fields in Coarse Grained Soils under Different Moisture Contents, Journal of Hydrology 159: 187-195. 11. Logsdon S. D. (2002). Determination of Preferential Flow Model Parameters, Soil Science Society of American Journal 66: 1095-1103. 12. Merdun H. (2005). Types and Modeling of Preferential Flow, KSU Journal of Science and Engineering, 8(1).
19
13. Nieber J. L. (2005). Lateral Preferential Flow on Hillslopes Through Pathways Formed by Biological and Mechanical Processes, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, USA. 14. Richards, B. K., T. S. Steenhuis, J. H. Peverly and M. B. McBride (2000). Effect of Sludge Processing Mode, Soil Texture and Soil pH on Metal Mobility in Undisturbed Soil Columns under Accelerated Loading, Environmental Pollution 109: 327-346. 15. Richards, B.K., T.S. Steenhuis, J.H. Peverly, and M.B. McBride (1998). Metal Mobility at an Old, Heavily-Loaded Sludge Application Site. Environmental Pollution 99(3): 365-377. 16. Rimmer, A., D.A. DiCarlo, T.S. Steenhuis, B. Bierck, D. Durnford, and J.-Y. Parlange (1998). Rapid Fluid Content Measurement Method for Fingered Flow in an Oil-Water-Sand System Using Synchrotron X-Rays, Journal of Contaminant Hydrology 31(3-4): 315-335. 17. Rimmer, A., T.S. Steenhuis, and J.S. Selker (1995 a). One-Dimensional Model to Evaluate the Performance of Wick Samplers in Soils, Soil Science Society of American Journal 59(1): 88-92. 18. Rimmer, A., T.S. Steenhuis, J.S. Selker, and G.J. Albrecht (1995 b). Wick Samplers: An Evaluation of Solute Travel Times. Soil Science 159(4):235-243. 19. Ritsema, C.J., J.C. van Dam, J.L. Nieber, L.W. Dekker, K. Oostindie, and T. Steenhuis (2001). Preferential Flow in Water Repellent Sandy Soils: Principles and Modeling Approaches, In Proceeding of the 2nd ASAE International Symposium on Preferential Flow: Water movement and chemical transport in the environment, Honolulu, HI. January 3-5. 20. Ritsema, J.C., L.W.Dekker, J.L.Nieber, and T.S.Steenhuis (1998). Modelling and field evidence of finger formation and finger recurrence in a water repellent sandy soil, Water Resources Research 34(4): 555-567. 21. Selker, J.S., P. Leclerq, J.-Y. Parlange, and T.S. Steenhuis (1992 a). Fingered Flow in Two Dimensions. Part 1. Measurement of Matric Potential, Water Resources Research 28(9): 2513-2521. 22. Selker, J.S., T.S. Steenhuis, and J.-Y. Parlange (1992 b). Wetting Front Instability in Homogeneous Sandy Soils under Continuous Infiltration, Soil Science Society of American Journal Journal 56(5): 1346-1350.
20
23. Shalit, G. and T.S. Steenhuis (1996). A Simple Mixing Layer Model Predicting Solute Flow to Drainage Lines under Preferential Flow, Journal of Hydrology 183: 139-149. 24. Stagnitti F., J.-Y. Parlange, T. S. Steenhuis, B. Nussen (1994). Modelling the migration of water soluble contaminants through preferred paths in the soil, Groundwater Quality Management 93 conference, Tallinn, IAHS Publication 220: 367-379. 25. Stagnitti, F., L. Li, G. Allinson, I. Phillips, D. Lockington, A. Zeiliguer, M. Allinson, J. Lloyd-Smith, and M. Xie (1999). A mathematical model for estimating the extent of solute- and water-flux heterogeneity in multiple sample percolation experiments, Journal of Hydrology 215: 59-69. 26. Stagnitti, F., Ling Li, A. Barry, G. Allinson, J.-Y. Parlange, T. Steenhuis, and E. Lakshmanan (2001). Modelling Solute Transport in Structured Soils: Performance Evaluation of the ADR and TRM Models, Mathematical and Computer Modelling 34: 433-440. 27. Steenhuis, T. S., Boll, J., Shalit, G., Selker, J. S., & Merwin, I. A. (1994). A simple equation for predicting preferential flow solute concentrations, Journal of Environmental Quality, 23(5): 1058-1064. 28. Steenhuis, T.S., M. Bodnar, L.D. Geohring, S-A.E. Aburime, and R. Wallach (1997). A Simple Model for Predicting Solute Concentration in Agricultural Tile Lines Shortly After Application, Hydrology and Earth System Sciences 4:823-833. 29. Wallach, R. and T.S. Steenhuis (1998). Model for Nonreactive Solute Transport in Structured Soils with Continuous Preferential Flow Paths, Soil Science Society of American Journal 62: 881-886.
21
APPENDICES
Appendix A Appendix B Appendix C Appendix D Appendix E Appendix F
Specification of the Laboratory Model Sieve Analysis Hydraulic Conductivity Calculation Hydraulic Conductivity Comparison Sample Linear Regression Analysis Photographs of the Model
22
Table A-1 Specification of the laboratory model
Media type
Brine % by weight
Uniformity coefficient (Cu)
Effective Weight of size dry (d10), Sand(Ws), mm kg Volume Total Effective of Porosity Porosity Cylinder (n) (ne) (m3) Bulk Density of Sand Kg/m3
Volume of Water (Vw), Ltr 5.340 0.403 1173.267
Volume of Water Drained (Vwd), Ltr
Specific Gravity of Sand Particle (s.g.) 1.965
Sand 1
1.42
0.60
15.550
Sand 2
1.55
0.11
14.020
4.970
0.375
0.013
1057.826
1.693
SPECIFICATION OF THE LABORATORY MODEL
A-1
Sand 3
5 10 20 5 10 20 5 10 20 0.30 15.350 5.120 0.386
1.4
2.613 2.675 2.730 2.135 2.250 2.355 2.270 2.355 2.395
0.197 0.202 0.206 0.161 0.170 0.178 0.171 0.178 0.181
1158.176
1.887
Appendix A
Appendix B
S iev e Analy sis
B -1. Weight of sample (sand1) = 2000 gm Sieve Opening (mm) 1 4.75 2.00 0.85 0.60 0.425 0.25 Pan Wt. of Soil Retained (gm) 2 0.00 0.00 802.02 1018.54 167.80 3.53 1.00 % Weight retained 3 0.00% 0.00% 40.10% 50.93% 8.39% 0.18% 0.05% Cumulative Percent Retained 4 0.00% 0.00% 40.10% 91.03% 99.42% 99.59% 99.64%
Percent Passing 5 100.00% 100.00% 59.90% 8.97% 0.58% 0.41% 0.36%
B -- 1
GRADATION CURVE ( Sand 1)
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
Sieve Analysis
50%
Percent Finer By Weight
D60=0.85
D30= 0.66 D10=0.60
B -2
1
40%
30%
20%
10%
Appendix B
0%
10
Grain Size (mm)
0.1
0.01
Appendix B
S iev e Analy sis
Sample Calculations:
The grain-size distribution obtained from the sieve analysis is plotted in a semi-logarithmic graph paper with grain size plotted on the log scale and percent finer plotted on the natural scale. From graph D10 = 0.60 mm D30 = 0.66 mm D60 = 0.85 mm Uniformity Coefficient (Cu) = D60/D10 = (0.85) / (0.60) = 1.42 Effective size of a given sample of sand is the particle size (in millimeters) where 10% of the particles in that sample (by weight) are smaller, while 90% are larger. Usually this is denoted as the D10. 1. Weight of soil retained on each sieve W = 802.02 g 2. Percent weight of soil retained on each sieve, Rn (%) Rn (%) = [Weight of soil retained / Weight of oven dry sample] x 100 (%) Rn = (802.02/2000)*100 = 40.1% 3. Cumulative percent of soil retained on the nth sieve, SUMRn (%) SUM Rn (%) = R(nth) (%) Sum Rn = 40.1 % % 4. Cumulative percent of soil passing through the nth sieve (% finer), 100 - Rn 100 - Rn = percent finer = 100 - R(nth) (%) = 100-40.1 = 59.9 5. Weight loss of soil during sieve analysis W (g) = [(Wt. of sample SUM (Weight of soil retained) / Wt. of sample] x 100 = (W W1) / (W) x 100 (%) (O.K. if less than 2%) = 7.2 g = 0.36 %
B -- 3
Appendix B
S iev e Analy sis
B - 2. Weight of sample ( sand 2)
= 1000 gm
Sieve Opening (mm)

1 4.75 2 0.3 0.212 0.15 0.106 0.06 Pan
Wt. of Soil Retained (gm)
% Weight retained
Cumulative Percent Wt. Retained 4
Percent Passing
2 0.00 0.00 0.00 34.59 719.82 197.17 0.68 29.03
3 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 3.46% 71.98% 19.72% 0.07% 2.90%
5 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 3.46% 75.44% 95.16% 95.23% 98.13% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 96.54% 24.56% 4.84% 4.77% 1.87%
From graph D10 = 0.11 mm D30 = 0.15 mm D60 = 0.17 mm Uniformity Coefficient (Cu) = D60/D10 = (0.17) / (0.11) = 1.55 Weight loss of soil during sieve analysis = 1.87 % ( Less than 2% ok )
B -- 4
GRADATION CURVE ( Sand 2 )
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
Sieve Analysis
50%
D60=0.17
D30= 0.15
D10=0.11
B -5
1
40%
30%
20%
10%
Appendix B
0%
10
Grain Size (mm)
0.1
0.01
Appendix B
S iev e Analy sis
B - 3. Weight of sample ( sand 3) = 1000 gm
Sieve Opening (mm)

1 4.75 2 0.85 0.3 0.212 0.15 0.106 0.06 Pan
Wt. of Soil Retained (gm)
% Weight retained
Cumulative Percent Wt. Retained
Percent Passing
2 0.00 0.00 59.44 851.27 60.85 15.03 0.00 0.00 1.65
3 0.00% 0.00% 5.94% 85.13% 6.09% 1.50% 0.00% 0.00% 0.17%
4 0.00% 0.00% 5.94% 91.07% 97.16% 98.66% 98.66% 98.66% 98.82%
5 100.00% 100.00% 94.06% 8.93% 2.84% 1.34% 1.34% 1.34% 1.18%
From graph D10 = 0.30 mm D30 = 0.38 mm D60 = 0.42 mm Uniformity Coefficient (Cu) = D60/D10 = (0.42) / (0.30) = 1.40 Weight loss of soil during sieve analysis = 1.18 % ( Less than 2% ok )
B -- 6
GRADATION CURVE ( Sand 3 )
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
Sieve Analysis
50%
D60=0.42
D30= 0.38
D10=0.30
B -7
1
40%
30%
20%
10%
Appendix B
0%
10
0.1
0.01
Grain Size (mm)
Table C-1 Hydraulic conductivity of sand 1 for water before 5 % brine solution Test Head Packed Sand Total Flow, Inlet Outlet Duration (Darcy) No. Length L (m) Q(l/min) Head(m) Head(m) (min) (m)
Q/H ( l/mmin) H/L
Darcy Flux, q(m/s)
Point k (m/s)
1st Series 0 1.48 1.94 2.36 3.57 3.82 1.16 0.00 1.16 3.296 0.97 0.00 0.97 3.675 0.79 0.00 0.79 3.010 0.60 0.00 0.60 3.251 1.799E-03 2.188E-03 3.310E-03 3.541E-03 0.41 0.00 0.41 3.620 1.374E-03 0 0.55 0.80 1.05 1.30 1.55 Linear k R
2
0.75
1.00
2.514E-03 2.258E-03 2.091E-03 2.552E-03 2.289E-03 2.380E-03 0.9809
0.75
1.00
0.75
1.00
0.75
1.00
Hydraulic Conductivity Calculation
C-1
0.75
1.00
Appendix C
Table C-2 Hydraulic conductivity of sand 1 for 5 % brine solution with comparision between Darcy's and measured solute travel time
Inlet Head(m) H/L Point k (m/s) Head Outlet (Darcy) Head(m) (m) Q/H ( l/mmin) Darcy Flux, q(m/s) Computed Test Duration (s) Duration (s)
No.
Packed Sand Length L (m)
Test Duration (min)
Total Flow, Q(l/min)
2nd Series (with salt water) 0 0.41 0.60 0.79 0.97 1.16 0.00 1.16 3.095 3.324E-03 0.00 0.97 3.085 2.778E-03 1.30 1.55 Linear k R
2
0 0.55 0.80 1.05 2.129E-03 2.866E-03 2.142E-03 2.149E-03 2.464E-03 0.9329 1.626E-03
0 166.00 87.00
0 125 117
1 0.00 0.00 0.79 4.127 3.000E-03 0.60 3.066 1.696E-03
0.75
2.08
0.96
0.00
0.41
2.341
8.889E-04
0.75
0.70
1.83
0.75
1.18
3.24
0.75
0.80
3.00
53.00 44.00 Linear t R

2
214 229 1.38 0.94
0.75
0.50
3.59
C-2
Appendix C
Table C-3 Hydraulic conductivity of sand 1 for water before 10 % brine solution Test Head Packed Sand Total Flow, Inlet Outlet No. Duration (Darcy) Length L (m) Q(l/min) Head(m) Head(m) (min) (m)
Q/H ( l/mmin) H/L
Darcy Flux, q(m/s)
Point k (m/s)
2
0.75
1.00
2.591E-03 2.220E-03 2.787E-03 2.085E-03 2.281E-03 2.338E-03 0.9569
0.75
1.00
0.75
1.00
C-3
0.75
1.00
0.75
1.00
Appendix C
Head Q/H ( l/mInlet Outlet (Darcy) min) Head(m) Head(m) (m) Darcy Flux, q(m/s) H/L Point k (m/s) Computed Test Duration (s) Duration (s)
No.
Test Duration (min)
2
0 0.55 0.80 1.05 2.429E-03 2.229E-03 2.978E-03 2.562E-03 2.819E-03 0.9642 2.202E-03
0 126 78 65 39 38 Linear t R
2
0 89 59 48 31 22 1.39 0.99
1 0.00 0.00 0.79 3.210 2.333E-03 0.60 3.498 1.935E-03
0.75
1.48
1.30
0.00
0.41
3.171
1.204E-03
0.75
0.98
2.09
0.75
0.80
2.52
0.75
0.52
4.17
0.75
0.37
4.28
C-4
Appendix C
Q/H ( l/mmin) H/L
Darcy Flux, q(m/s)
Point k (m/s)
2
0.75
1.00
2.507E-03 2.836E-03 2.760E-03 2.185E-03 2.137E-03 2.284E-03 0.9449
0.75
1.00
0.75
1.00
C-5
0.75
1.00
0.75
1.00
Appendix C
No.
Test Duration (min)
2
0 0.55 0.80 1.05 3.045E-03 3.185E-03 2.871E-03 2.622E-03 2.950E-03 0.9732 2.388E-03
0 118 64
0 66 36
1 0.00 0.00 0.79 4.586 3.333E-03 0.60 4.385 2.426E-03
0.75
1.10
1.41
0.00
0.41
3.439
1.306E-03
0.75
0.60
2.62
0.75
0.80
3.60
0.75
0.58
4.02
42 38 Linear t R
2
35 21 1.84 0.96
0.75
0.35
4.38
C-6
Appendix C
Q/H ( l/mmin) H/L
Darcy Flux, q(m/s)
Point k (m/s)
1st Series 0 0.12 0.13 0.18 0.26 0.25 1.16 0.00 1.16 0.97 0.00 0.97 0.267 0.216 0.79 0.00 0.79 0.229 0.60 0.00 0.60 0.218 0.41 0.00 0.41 0.293 1.111E-04 1.204E-04 1.667E-04 2.407E-04 2.315E-04 0 0.55 0.80 1.05 1.30 1.55 Linear k R
2
0.75
10.00
2.033E-04 1.511E-04 1.592E-04 1.857E-04 1.497E-04 1.648E-04 0.9554
0.75
10.00
C-7
0.75
10.00
0.75
10.00
0.75
10.00
Appendix C
No.
Test Duration (min)
2
0 0.55 0.80 1.05 2.208E-04 1.592E-04 1.642E-04 1.796E-04 1.761E-04 0.9613 1.863E-04
0 1186 687 725 567 435 Linear t R

2
0 778 566 370 402 379 1.59 0.91
1 0.00 0.00 0.79 0.229 1.667E-04 0.60 0.318 1.759E-04
0.75
12.97
0.11
0.00
0.41
0.268
1.019E-04
0.75
9.43
0.19
0.75
6.17
0.18
0.75
6.70
0.23
0.75
6.32
0.30
C-8
Appendix C
Table C-9 Hydraulic conductivity of sand 2 for water before 10 % brine solution Test Head Packed Sand Total Flow, Inlet Outlet Duration (Darcy) No. Length L (m) Q(l/min) Head(m) Head(m) (min) (m)
Q/H ( l/mmin) H/L
Darcy Flux, q(m/s)
Point k (m/s)
1st Series 0 0.11 0.17 0.19 0.20 0.34 1.16 0.00 1.16 0.97 0.00 0.97 0.206 0.293 0.79 0.00 0.79 0.242 0.60 0.00 0.60 0.285 0.41 0.00 0.41 0.268 1.019E-04 1.574E-04 1.759E-04 1.852E-04 3.148E-04 0 0.55 0.80 1.05 1.30 1.55 Linear k R
2
0.75
10.00
1.863E-04 1.976E-04 1.681E-04 1.428E-04 2.035E-04 1.943E-04 0.9254
0.75
10.00
C-9
0.75
10.00
0.75
10.00
0.75
10.00
Appendix C
No.
Test Duration (min)
2
0 0.55 0.80 1.05 2.092E-04 2.212E-04 2.071E-04 1.916E-04 2.008E-04 0.989 2.033E-04
1 0.00 0.00 0.79 0.318 2.315E-04 0.60 0.301 1.667E-04
0.75
9.83
0.12
0.00
0.41
0.293
1.111E-04
0.75
10.00
0.18
764 550 474 430 Linear t R

2
600 450 371 289 1.26 0.99
0.75
7.50
0.25
0.75
6.18
0.29
0.75
4.82
0.32
C - 10
Appendix C
Q/H ( l/mmin) H/L
Darcy Flux, q(m/s)
Point k (m/s)
2
0.75
10.00
1.694E-04 1.976E-04 1.415E-04 1.785E-04 1.676E-04 1.729E-04 0.9664
0.75
10.00
0.75
10.00
C - 11
0.75
10.00
0.75
10.00
Appendix C
No.
Test Duration (min)
2
0 0.55 0.80 1.05 1.743E-04 2.300E-04 1.714E-04 2.574E-04 2.535E-04 0.9032 2.371E-04
0 1028 960 554 600 335 Linear t R

2
0 913 726 467 363 161 1.16 0.95
1 0.00 0.00 0.79 0.331 2.407E-04 0.60 0.251 1.389E-04
0.75
15.22
0.14
0.00
0.41
0.341
1.296E-04
0.75
12.10
0.15
0.75
7.78
0.26
0.75
6.05
0.24
0.75
2.68
0.43
C - 12
Appendix C
Q/H ( l/mmin) H/L
Darcy Flux, q(m/s)
Point k (m/s)
2
0.75
1.00
2.287E-03 3.161E-03 2.672E-03 2.985E-03 2.999E-03 3.079E-03 0.9846
0.75
1.00
0.75
1.00
C - 13
0.75
1.00
0.75
1.00
Appendix C
No.
Test Duration (min)
2
0 0.55 0.80 1.05 2.906E-03 3.300E-03 2.978E-03 3.071E-03 3.056E-03 0.9917 3.421E-03
0 69 55 37 33 27 Linear t R
2
0 62 34 21 27 18 1.20 0.91
1 0.00 0.00 0.79 4.752 3.454E-03 0.60 4.184 2.315E-03
0.75
1.03
2.02
0.00
0.41
4.927
1.870E-03
0.75
0.57
2.50
0.75
0.35
3.73
0.75
0.45
4.17
0.75
0.30
5.13
C - 14
Appendix C
Q/H ( l/mmin) H/L
Darcy Flux, q(m/s)
Point k (m/s)
2
0.75
1.00
2.778E-03 2.696E-03 2.778E-03 3.149E-03 2.443E-03 2.805E-03 0.9577
0.75
1.00
0.75
1.00
C - 15
0.75
1.00
0.75
1.00
Appendix C
No.
Test Duration (min)
2
0 0.55 0.80 1.05 3.580E-03 2.619E-03 3.456E-03 2.820E-03 3.081E-03 0.9397 3.675E-03
0 66 47 49 30 31 Linear t R
2
0 41 34 31 26 23 1.63 0.95
1 0.00 0.00 0.79 3.771 2.741E-03 0.60 5.155 2.852E-03
0.75
0.68
2.17
0.00
0.41
5.293
2.009E-03
0.75
0.57
3.08
0.75
0.52
2.96
0.75
0.43
4.84
0.75
0.38
4.71
C - 16
Appendix C
Q/H ( l/mmin) H/L
Darcy Flux, q(m/s)
Point k (m/s)
2
0.75
1.00
2.625E-03 2.836E-03 2.592E-03 3.106E-03 2.862E-03 2.986E-03 0.9864
0.75
1.00
0.75
1.00
C - 17
0.75
1.00
0.75
1.00
Appendix C
No.
Test Duration (min)
2
0 0.55 0.80 1.05 3.905E-03 3.326E-03 2.806E-03 3.520E-03 3.377E-03 0.9554 3.523E-03
0 70 49 43 42 28 Linear t R
2
0 62 42 26 27 16 1.13 0.93
1 0.00 0.00 0.79 4.790 3.481E-03 0.60 5.623 3.111E-03
0.75
1.03
2.08
0.00
0.41
5.073
1.926E-03
0.75
0.70
3.36
0.75
0.43
3.76
0.75
0.45
3.93
0.75
0.27
5.88
C - 18
Appendix C
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
q (m/s)
y = 406.84x + 0.0798 R = 0.9329 y = 420.09x + 0.0172 R = 0.9809
Sand 1 - Salt water 5 %
Sand 1 - water Linear (Sand 1 - Salt water 5 %)

Linear (Sand 1 - water)
0.8
Hydraulic Conductivity Comparisons
D-1
0.001 0.0015 0.002 0.0025 0.003
0.6
0.4
0.2
0 0.0035 0.004
0.0005
H/L
Appendix D
Figure D-1 Comparision of hydrolic conductivity sand 1 using water and water with 5 % brine solution
140
120
y = 0.7231x - 1.7545 R = 0.9367
100
80
60
solute travel time comparision

Linear (solute travel time comparision)
D-2
60 80 100 120 140 160 180
40
20
20
40
-20
Appendix D
Figure D-2 Comparision between Darcy's and measured solute travel time for sand 1 with 5 % brine solution
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2 y = 427.7x - 0.0069 R = 0.9569
1 Sand 1 - water
q (m/s)
0.8
y = 354.7x + 0.0862 R = 0.9642
Sand 1 - Salt water 10 % Linear (Sand 1 - water)

Linear (Sand 1 - Salt water 10 %)
0.6
D-3
0.0015 0.002 0.0025 0.003 0.0035
0.4
0.2
0
0.004 0.0045
0.0005
0.001
-0.2
H/L
Appendix D
100
90
y = 0.72x - 0.0195 R = 0.9897
80
70
60
50 solute travel time comparision
D-4
40 60 80 100 120
40
30
20
10
20
140
-10
Appendix D
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2 y = 437.84x - 0.0514 R = 0.9449

Sand 1 - water
q (m/s)
0.8
Sand 1 - Salt water 20 % Linear (Sand 1 - water) y = 349.04x + 0.0088 R = 0.9732

0.6
D-5
0.0015 0.002
0.4
0.2
0.0005
0.001
-0.2
H/L
0.0025
0.003
0.0035
0.004
0.0045
Appendix D
80
70 y = 0.5442x + 3.0858 R = 0.955
60
50

D-6
60 80 100 120
30
20
10
20
40
140
Appendix D
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2 y = 6068.7x - 0.0081 R = 0.9554
1 Sand 2 - water
q (m/s)
0.8 y = 5678.1x - 0.0128 R = 0.9613

0.6
D- 7
0.0001 0.00015
0.4
0.2
0.00005
H/L
0.0002
0.00025
0.0003
-0.2
Appendix D
900
800
y = 0.63x + 37.826 R = 0.9072
700
600
500
400

D-8
600 800 1000 1200
300
200
100
200
400
1400
Appendix D
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2 y = 5146.2x + 0.0701 R = 0.9254
1 Sand 2 - water
q (m/s)
0.8
0.6
y = 4980.1x - 0.0193 R = 0.989

D- 9
0.0001 0.00015
0.4
0.2
0.00005
H/L
0.0002
0.00025
0.0003
0.00035
-0.2
Appendix D
700
600
y = 0.7935x - 9.9986 R = 0.9876
500
400
300

D -10
300 400 500 600 700 800
200
100
0 900
100
200
-100
Appendix D
1.8
1.6
1.4
y = 5785x + 0.0152 R = 0.9664
1.2
y = 3944.4x + 0.1296 R = 0.9032
Sand 2 - water

q (m/s)
0.8
D -11
0.00015 0.0002 0.00025 0.0003 0.00035
0.6
0.4
0.2
0 0.0004 0.00045
0.00005
0.0001
H/L
Appendix D
1000
800
y = 0.8644x - 62.575 R = 0.9507
600
400

D -12
400 600 800 1000 1200
200
200
-200
Appendix D
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2 y = 324.82x + 0.0562 R = 0.9846
1 Sand 3 - water
q (m/s)
0.8 y = 327.21x - 0.014 R = 0.9917

0.6
D -13
0.0015 0.002 0.0025
0.4
0.2
0.0005
0.001
-0.2
H/L
0.003
0.0035
0.004
0.0045
0.005
Appendix D
70
60
y = 0.8243x - 3.3604 R = 0.9079
50
40
30

D -14
30 40 50 60 70
20
10
0 80
10
20
-10
Appendix D
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2 y = 356.49x + 0.0146 R = 0.9577

Sand 3 - water
q (m/s)
0.8
Sand 3 - Salt water 10 % Linear (Sand 3 - water) y = 324.61x - 0.0174 R = 0.9397

0.6
D -15
0.0015 0.002 0.0025
0.4
0.2
0.0005
0.001
H/L
0.003
0.0035
0.004
0.0045
0.005
-0.2
Appendix D
50
45 y = 0.6126x + 3.0668 R = 0.9537
40
35
30
D -16
30 40 50 60
20
15
10
10
20
70
Appendix D
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
y = 334.88x + 0.0428 R = 0.9864

Sand 3 - water
q (m/s)

Linear (Sand 3 - Salt water 20 %) y = 296.14x + 0.0035 R = 0.9554
0.8
D -17
0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005
0.6
0.4
0.2
0 0.006
0.001
H/L
Appendix D
70
60 y = 0.8832x - 5.3154 R = 0.9327
50
40
30

D -18
30 40 50 60 70
20
10
0 80
10
20
-10
Appendix D
Appendix E
S am ple L inear R egression Analy sis

No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Sum Sum2 Mean Sxx Syy Sxy b a y= Darcy Flux, q(m/s) [x] 0 1.37E-03 1.80E-03 2.19E-03 3.31E-03 3.54E-03 1.22E-02 1.49E-04 2.04E-03 8.55E-06 1.54E+00 3.59E-03
4.201E+02 1.723E-02
H/L [y] 0 0.55 0.80 1.05 1.30 1.55 5.23E+00 2.74E+01 8.72E-01
x2 0.00E+00 1.89E-06 3.24E-06 4.79E-06 1.10E-05 1.25E-05 3.34E-05
y2 0.00E+00 2.99E-01 6.35E-01 1.10E+00 1.68E+00 2.39E+00 6.10E+00
xy 0.00E+00 7.51E-04 1.43E-03 2.29E-03 4.29E-03 5.48E-03 1.42E-02
420.0945x+0.0172
R2 =
0.9809
E -1
Appendix F
Photographs of the Model
F -1

Comparision Preferential Flow of Solute in Porous Media With Darcy's Flow (MSC Thesis by Indra)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Comparision Preferential Flow of Solute in Porous Media With Darcy's Flow (MSC Thesis by Indra)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TRIBHUVAN UNIVERSITY

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

COMPARISION OF PREFERENTIAL FLOW OF SOLUTE IN POROUS MEDIA WITH DARCY'S FLOW

BY INDRA NARAYAN SHRESTHA

September, 2010 Lalitpur, Nepal

Master of Science Thesis (Thesis No. 065/MSWSHD/R/905/155)

COMPARISION OF PREFERENTIAL FLOW OF SOLUTE IN POROUS MEDIA WITH DARCY'S FLOW

By INDRA NARAYAN SHRESTHA

Tribhuvan University Institute of Engineering, Pulchowk Campus Department of Civil Engineering

September, 2010 Lalitpur, Nepal

METHODOLOGY 3.1 3.2 3.3 Laboratory Model Assumptions Data Collection

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 5.1 5.2 Conclusions Recommendations

Preferential Flow Modeling:

Preferential Flow and Pesticides/Toxics

Wall Correction in Laboratory Model

Figure 3.1 Schematic diagram of the model

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Hydraulic Conductivity Calculation (Water and Salt Water)

140 y = 0.7231x - 1.7545 R = 0.9367

100 y = 0.72x - 0.0195 R = 0.9897 80 Sand 1 5%

y = 0.5442x + 3.0858 R = 0.955 40

Sand 1 20 % Linear (Sand 1 5%)

y = 0.8644x - 62.575 R = 0.9507 800

Sand 2 20% Linear (Sand 2 5%)

Linear (Sand 2 20%)

y = 0.8243x - 3.3604 R = 0.9079 y = 0.6126x + 3.0668 R = 0.9537 Sand 3 5%

Sand 3 20% Linear (Sand 3 5%)

Linear (Sand 3 10%)

Linear (Sand 3 20%) 10

y = 0.63x + 37.826 R = 0.9072

5% Sand 3 Linear (5% Sand 1)

Linear (5% Sand 3) y = 0.7231x - 1.7545 R = 0.9367 y = 0.8243x - 3.3604 R = 0.9079

y = 0.7935x - 9.9986 R = 0.9876

10% Sand 3 Linear (10% Sand 1)

200 y = 0.72x - 0.0195 R = 0.9897

Linear (10% Sand 2)

Linear (10% Sand 3)

y = 0.6126x + 3.0668 R = 0.9537 0

y = 0.8644x - 62.575 R = 0.9507

20% Sand 2 400 20% Sand 3

Linear (20% Sand 2) Linear (20% Sand 3)

y = 0.8832x - 5.3154 R = 0.9327 0

0.98 0.96 0.94 0.96 0.93 0.97 0.98 0.96 0.99

0.93 0.96 0.97 0.96 0.99 0.9 0.99 0.94 0.96

0.94 0.99 0.96 0.91 0.99 0.96 0.91 0.95 0.93

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Appendix A Appendix B Appendix C Appendix D Appendix E Appendix F

Table A-1 Specification of the laboratory model

Uniformity coefficient (Cu)

Volume of Water (Vw), Ltr 5.340 0.403 1173.267

Volume of Water Drained (Vwd), Ltr

Specific Gravity of Sand Particle (s.g.) 1.965

SPECIFICATION OF THE LABORATORY MODEL

5 10 20 5 10 20 5 10 20 0.30 15.350 5.120 0.386

2.613 2.675 2.730 2.135 2.250 2.355 2.270 2.355 2.395

0.197 0.202 0.206 0.161 0.170 0.178 0.171 0.178 0.181

Percent Passing 5 100.00% 100.00% 59.90% 8.97% 0.58% 0.41% 0.36%

GRADATION CURVE ( Sand 1)

Percent Finer By Weight

D30= 0.66 D10=0.60

Grain Size (mm)

B - 2. Weight of sample ( sand 2)

Sieve Opening (mm)