A comparison of estimated and calculated effective porosity

Daniel B. Stephens, Kuo-Chin Hsu, Mark A. Prieksat, Mark D. Ankeny, Neil Blandford, Tracy L. Roth, James A. Kelsey, Julia R. Whitworth

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

58 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Effective porosity in solute-transport analyses is usually estimated rather than calculated from tracer tests in the field or laboratory. Calculated values of effective porosity in the laboratory on three different textured samples were compared to estimates derived from particle-size distributions and soil-water characteristic curves. The agreement was poor and it seems that no clear relationships exist between effective porosity calculated from laboratory tracer tests and effective porosity estimated from particle-size distributions and soil-water characteristic curves. A field tracer test in a sand-and-gravel aquifer produced a calculated effective porosity of approximately 0.17. By comparison, estimates of effective porosity from textural data, moisture retention, and published values were approximately 50-90% greater than the field calibrated value. Thus, estimation of effective porosity for chemical transport is highly dependent on the chosen transport model and is best obtained by laboratory or field tracer tests.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)156-165
Number of pages10
JournalHydrogeology Journal
Volume6
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1998 Jan 1

Fingerprint

porosity
tracer
soil water
particle size
comparison
solute transport
sand and gravel
moisture
aquifer
laboratory
test

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Water Science and Technology
  • Earth and Planetary Sciences (miscellaneous)

Cite this

Stephens, D. B., Hsu, K-C., Prieksat, M. A., Ankeny, M. D., Blandford, N., Roth, T. L., ... Whitworth, J. R. (1998). A comparison of estimated and calculated effective porosity. Hydrogeology Journal, 6(1), 156-165. https://doi.org/10.1007/s100400050141
Stephens, Daniel B. ; Hsu, Kuo-Chin ; Prieksat, Mark A. ; Ankeny, Mark D. ; Blandford, Neil ; Roth, Tracy L. ; Kelsey, James A. ; Whitworth, Julia R. / A comparison of estimated and calculated effective porosity. In: Hydrogeology Journal. 1998 ; Vol. 6, No. 1. pp. 156-165.
@article{561d8f56df3f450eaac231a7321fac44,
title = "A comparison of estimated and calculated effective porosity",
abstract = "Effective porosity in solute-transport analyses is usually estimated rather than calculated from tracer tests in the field or laboratory. Calculated values of effective porosity in the laboratory on three different textured samples were compared to estimates derived from particle-size distributions and soil-water characteristic curves. The agreement was poor and it seems that no clear relationships exist between effective porosity calculated from laboratory tracer tests and effective porosity estimated from particle-size distributions and soil-water characteristic curves. A field tracer test in a sand-and-gravel aquifer produced a calculated effective porosity of approximately 0.17. By comparison, estimates of effective porosity from textural data, moisture retention, and published values were approximately 50-90{\%} greater than the field calibrated value. Thus, estimation of effective porosity for chemical transport is highly dependent on the chosen transport model and is best obtained by laboratory or field tracer tests.",
author = "Stephens, {Daniel B.} and Kuo-Chin Hsu and Prieksat, {Mark A.} and Ankeny, {Mark D.} and Neil Blandford and Roth, {Tracy L.} and Kelsey, {James A.} and Whitworth, {Julia R.}",
year = "1998",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1007/s100400050141",
language = "English",
volume = "6",
pages = "156--165",
journal = "Hydrogeology Journal",
issn = "1431-2174",
publisher = "Springer Heidelberg",
number = "1",

}

Stephens, DB, Hsu, K-C, Prieksat, MA, Ankeny, MD, Blandford, N, Roth, TL, Kelsey, JA & Whitworth, JR 1998, 'A comparison of estimated and calculated effective porosity', Hydrogeology Journal, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 156-165. https://doi.org/10.1007/s100400050141

A comparison of estimated and calculated effective porosity. / Stephens, Daniel B.; Hsu, Kuo-Chin; Prieksat, Mark A.; Ankeny, Mark D.; Blandford, Neil; Roth, Tracy L.; Kelsey, James A.; Whitworth, Julia R.

In: Hydrogeology Journal, Vol. 6, No. 1, 01.01.1998, p. 156-165.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - A comparison of estimated and calculated effective porosity

AU - Stephens, Daniel B.

AU - Hsu, Kuo-Chin

AU - Prieksat, Mark A.

AU - Ankeny, Mark D.

AU - Blandford, Neil

AU - Roth, Tracy L.

AU - Kelsey, James A.

AU - Whitworth, Julia R.

PY - 1998/1/1

Y1 - 1998/1/1

N2 - Effective porosity in solute-transport analyses is usually estimated rather than calculated from tracer tests in the field or laboratory. Calculated values of effective porosity in the laboratory on three different textured samples were compared to estimates derived from particle-size distributions and soil-water characteristic curves. The agreement was poor and it seems that no clear relationships exist between effective porosity calculated from laboratory tracer tests and effective porosity estimated from particle-size distributions and soil-water characteristic curves. A field tracer test in a sand-and-gravel aquifer produced a calculated effective porosity of approximately 0.17. By comparison, estimates of effective porosity from textural data, moisture retention, and published values were approximately 50-90% greater than the field calibrated value. Thus, estimation of effective porosity for chemical transport is highly dependent on the chosen transport model and is best obtained by laboratory or field tracer tests.

AB - Effective porosity in solute-transport analyses is usually estimated rather than calculated from tracer tests in the field or laboratory. Calculated values of effective porosity in the laboratory on three different textured samples were compared to estimates derived from particle-size distributions and soil-water characteristic curves. The agreement was poor and it seems that no clear relationships exist between effective porosity calculated from laboratory tracer tests and effective porosity estimated from particle-size distributions and soil-water characteristic curves. A field tracer test in a sand-and-gravel aquifer produced a calculated effective porosity of approximately 0.17. By comparison, estimates of effective porosity from textural data, moisture retention, and published values were approximately 50-90% greater than the field calibrated value. Thus, estimation of effective porosity for chemical transport is highly dependent on the chosen transport model and is best obtained by laboratory or field tracer tests.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0001103414&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0001103414&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s100400050141

DO - 10.1007/s100400050141

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:0001103414

VL - 6

SP - 156

EP - 165

JO - Hydrogeology Journal

JF - Hydrogeology Journal

SN - 1431-2174

IS - 1

ER -

Stephens DB, Hsu K-C, Prieksat MA, Ankeny MD, Blandford N, Roth TL et al. A comparison of estimated and calculated effective porosity. Hydrogeology Journal. 1998 Jan 1;6(1):156-165. https://doi.org/10.1007/s100400050141