4.0 Article

Accuracy of Flowmeters Measuring Horizontal Groundwater Flow in an Unconsolidated Aquifer Simulator

期刊

GROUND WATER MONITORING AND REMEDIATION
卷 31, 期 2, 页码 48-62

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-6592.2010.01324.x

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Borehole flowmeters that measure horizontal flow velocity and direction of groundwater flow are being increasingly applied to a wide variety of environmental problems. This study was carried out to evaluate the measurement accuracy of several types of flowmeters in an unconsolidated aquifer simulator. Flowmeter response to hydraulic gradient, aquifer properties, and well-screen construction was measured during 2003 and 2005 at the U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Instrumentation Facility in Bay St. Louis, Mississippi. The flowmeters tested included a commercially available heat-pulse flowmeter, an acoustic Doppler flowmeter, a scanning colloidal borescope flowmeter, and a fluid-conductivity logging system. Results of the study indicated that at least one flowmeter was capable of measuring borehole flow velocity and direction in most simulated conditions. The mean error in direction measurements ranged from 15.1 degrees to 23.5 degrees and the directional accuracy of all tested flowmeters improved with increasing hydraulic gradient. The range of Darcy velocities examined in this study ranged 4.3 to 155 ft/d. For many plots comparing the simulated and measured Darcy velocity, the squared correlation coefficient (r2) exceeded 0.92. The accuracy of velocity measurements varied with well construction and velocity magnitude. The use of horizontal flowmeters in environmental studies appears promising but applications may require more than one type of flowmeter to span the range of conditions encountered in the field. Interpreting flowmeter data from field settings may be complicated by geologic heterogeneity, preferential flow, vertical flow, constricted screen openings, and nonoptimal screen orientation.

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

4.0
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