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 journalArticlepeer-review

68 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

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

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

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'A comparison of estimated and calculated effective porosity'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this