4.7 Article

An expression for land surface water storage monitoring using a two-formation geological weighing lysimeter

期刊

JOURNAL OF HYDROLOGY
卷 335, 期 3-4, 页码 240-246

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2006.11.014

关键词

weighing lysimeter; water budget; storage estimation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Field studies have demonstrated that ground surface rainfall accumulation can be detected at depth by synchronous increases in static confined groundwater pore pressures. This opens the way for geological weighing lysimeters providing disturbance-free water storage monitoring of the surface environment, in effect by weighing a significant land area in real time. Such systems require specific hydrogeological conditions, which are not easily verified by field observations and replicated observations from multiple geological formations are a prerequisite for quality control. Given replication over two monitored formations, we introduce an expression which utilises the respective formation piezometric water levels to give an improved combined estimate of the ground surface water budget. The expression utilises raw piezometric levels and has the advantage of direct correction for Earth tide noise, which may sometimes be influenced by local effects in addition to the pure solar/lunar tidal potential. The expression is particularly simple, if the two formations have similar (but possibly unknown) undrained Poisson ratios and porosities. Surface water budgets can then be estimated using only the respective formation barometric coefficients and piezometric levels. An example application to two vertically separated confined aquifers at a New Zealand site indicate an improved accuracy over single-formation observations. The two-formation expression for surface storage could find use as an accurate water budget tool with particular application to monitoring diffuse hydrological systems such as wetlands, and regions, and heavily forested localities. (c) 2006 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据