Home > Research > Publications & Outputs > Comparison of methodological uncertainty within...
View graph of relations

Comparison of methodological uncertainty within permeability measurements.

Research output: Contribution to Journal/MagazineJournal articlepeer-review

Published

Standard

Comparison of methodological uncertainty within permeability measurements. / Chappell, Nick A.; Lancaster, James W.
In: Hydrological Processes, Vol. 21, No. 18, 30.08.2007, p. 2504-2514.

Research output: Contribution to Journal/MagazineJournal articlepeer-review

Harvard

Chappell, NA & Lancaster, JW 2007, 'Comparison of methodological uncertainty within permeability measurements.', Hydrological Processes, vol. 21, no. 18, pp. 2504-2514. https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.6416

APA

Vancouver

Chappell NA, Lancaster JW. Comparison of methodological uncertainty within permeability measurements. Hydrological Processes. 2007 Aug 30;21(18):2504-2514. doi: 10.1002/hyp.6416

Author

Chappell, Nick A. ; Lancaster, James W. / Comparison of methodological uncertainty within permeability measurements. In: Hydrological Processes. 2007 ; Vol. 21, No. 18. pp. 2504-2514.

Bibtex

@article{4d0ecc35ed0144c8afcead6670684767,
title = "Comparison of methodological uncertainty within permeability measurements.",
abstract = "Permeability measurements are critical to the calculation of water-flow within hillslopes. Despite this, errors in permeability measurements are often ignored, and can be very large particularly in disturbance-sensitive gley soils. This work compares the uncertainties associated with six field methods of permeametry applied to a gleyed soil in upland Britain. Slug tests, constant-head borehole permeametry, and falling-head borehole permeametry were undertaken on established piezometers. Additionally, ring permeametry and two types of trench tests were evaluated. Method-related uncertainty due to proximity of impeding layers of high sorptivity soils produces under- and over-estimates of permeability by a factor of up to 0{\DH}2 and 5, respectively. This uncertainty band is smaller than the observed effects of anisotropy and temporal variability. Had smearing and soil-ring leakage errors not been minimized, the methodological uncertainties would have been so large that they would have distorted the true spatial field of permeability and its estimated impact on the balance of vertical and lateral flow.",
keywords = "borehole, error analysis, gley, hydraulic conductivity, permeability, permeametry",
author = "Chappell, {Nick A.} and Lancaster, {James W.}",
year = "2007",
month = aug,
day = "30",
doi = "10.1002/hyp.6416",
language = "English",
volume = "21",
pages = "2504--2514",
journal = "Hydrological Processes",
issn = "0885-6087",
publisher = "John Wiley and Sons Ltd",
number = "18",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparison of methodological uncertainty within permeability measurements.

AU - Chappell, Nick A.

AU - Lancaster, James W.

PY - 2007/8/30

Y1 - 2007/8/30

N2 - Permeability measurements are critical to the calculation of water-flow within hillslopes. Despite this, errors in permeability measurements are often ignored, and can be very large particularly in disturbance-sensitive gley soils. This work compares the uncertainties associated with six field methods of permeametry applied to a gleyed soil in upland Britain. Slug tests, constant-head borehole permeametry, and falling-head borehole permeametry were undertaken on established piezometers. Additionally, ring permeametry and two types of trench tests were evaluated. Method-related uncertainty due to proximity of impeding layers of high sorptivity soils produces under- and over-estimates of permeability by a factor of up to 0Ð2 and 5, respectively. This uncertainty band is smaller than the observed effects of anisotropy and temporal variability. Had smearing and soil-ring leakage errors not been minimized, the methodological uncertainties would have been so large that they would have distorted the true spatial field of permeability and its estimated impact on the balance of vertical and lateral flow.

AB - Permeability measurements are critical to the calculation of water-flow within hillslopes. Despite this, errors in permeability measurements are often ignored, and can be very large particularly in disturbance-sensitive gley soils. This work compares the uncertainties associated with six field methods of permeametry applied to a gleyed soil in upland Britain. Slug tests, constant-head borehole permeametry, and falling-head borehole permeametry were undertaken on established piezometers. Additionally, ring permeametry and two types of trench tests were evaluated. Method-related uncertainty due to proximity of impeding layers of high sorptivity soils produces under- and over-estimates of permeability by a factor of up to 0Ð2 and 5, respectively. This uncertainty band is smaller than the observed effects of anisotropy and temporal variability. Had smearing and soil-ring leakage errors not been minimized, the methodological uncertainties would have been so large that they would have distorted the true spatial field of permeability and its estimated impact on the balance of vertical and lateral flow.

KW - borehole

KW - error analysis

KW - gley

KW - hydraulic conductivity

KW - permeability

KW - permeametry

U2 - 10.1002/hyp.6416

DO - 10.1002/hyp.6416

M3 - Journal article

VL - 21

SP - 2504

EP - 2514

JO - Hydrological Processes

JF - Hydrological Processes

SN - 0885-6087

IS - 18

ER -