Hi,
Actually I am trying to find the amount of water exchange between coastal aquifer and a lake. Unfortunately, the only data that I have is, time series related to ground water level in several wells around the lake and the time series of water level in lake itself. As a classical approach to the problem I cannot use Darcy's law because of lack of information like hydraulic conductivity around the lake. So, I am trying to define such interaction with the following procedure:
note: please define that the lake water is extremely salty!!!
I want to know if this procedure is logic and acceptable for you? and if not, what do you suggest instead.
P.S. It is a part of my Ph.D. thesis and I attached a schematic picture but it is not the case, you can follow other topics related to other variables in attached link which is directly connected to my thesis weblog.
please let me know if you have done similar research, I will definitely cite your articles and papers if it would be useful for me.
Thankfully
Babak
Thank you all
http://urmia-lake-analysis.blogspot.com.tr/
Hi Babak,
I've not done research on this subject but will check with my colleauges in hydrology department.
Regards,
Amir
Использовать данные водного баланса.
Подземный сток, испаряемость, атмосферные осадки, режим уровней воды в водоемах-аналогах.
Топографическая карта.
Карта гидроизогипс масштаба 1:10000 - 1:50000
Mikhail.
I have all of that data. But for now I want to now the best way to find the amount of water exchange between aquifer and lake. Then I will use this time series beside other time series.
Михаил.
У меня все эти данные. Но сейчас я хочу, чтобы в настоящее время лучший способ найти количество водообмена между водоносного горизонта и озеро. Тогда я буду использовать этот временной ряд рядом с другими временными рядами.
Both as teaching and research exercises we have collected data from numerous surfacial piezometer/bore wells all in our rather sandy coastal plane but usually many kilometers from the ocean. One error we have made repeatedly is using and monitoring too many wells. The lake levels are always important and mostly because they always have a good connection to the aquifer close to the lake and (essentially one) well-done lake height (to accuracies of mm) accounts for literally 1000s of variously affected bore holes and countless measurements with dipping devices. Of course, you need a good model of the resistance to flow around and below the lake bed, but spend time on it! Don't allow your measuring staffs to settle, the animals to do their thing, etc. My most sucessful effort is a full model at Capel (my MARDAW paper) that uses combined lake/borehole data. Have a look at what you can do, with a multiple regression and (maybe) 10 years of data.
Anyway, don't let your people measure heights to cms. Near a lake, a mm is important; measuring it must be a priority.
Of course, you need to know the details of the ocean and at least near lakes and the salinity to get fresh water equivalents, or you can not see small changes. But don't rely on sloppy and generally flawed borehole measurements alone.
You should also allow that pumping tests be used, in the bores and the lake with a design to the tests that 'helps', using drawdown and recovery, perhaps with a variation of a Theis type test. The environment does this all the time, with rain, overflows or whatever. You need data of quality with observations over a period of time.
Dear Bill,
Thanks for your comments. But I got the data and I can't change the degree of accuracy in measurements. Actually I am working on a numerical case and I will use the data for developing a stochastic model.
- Badges
- Science topic