Predicting Hydraulic Conductivity and Flow Rate of a Saturated Porous Media: A Modeling Perspective

By: Veatasha H. Dorsey ENSC 4400 Environmental Modeling and Systems Dynamics Instructor: Garrett Love, PhD May 5, 2011

Introduction The rate at which water flows through a porous media, or hydraulic conductivity, provides many useful applications to our understanding of the hydrologic cycle. It is difficult to infer results from hydraulic conductivity from measurements made at the sample level in application to a more realistic scenario. Furthermore, incidences of error and disturbances are high when collecting hydraulic conductivity data. For those reasons it is challenging to characterize the hydraulic conductivity of an aquifer, or even a small crosssectional area through direct laboratory experimentation. Modeling through STELLA offers the ability to manipulate different parameters measured at the sample level (soil column) in order to simulate a real-world dynamic system such as a groundwater aquifer. Policy can also be inferred from the model in the areas of rate of recharge, groundwater use, depletion and transport of contaminants. In the area of groundwater contamination hydraulic conductivity is an important soil property because the size of pore spaces largely determine the transport and potency of the contaminant. Materials and Methodology Empirical Method In this experiment, the saturated hydraulic conductivity or coefficient of permeability, K, was measured using the constant head method with a formula K = VL/Ath wherein V is the collected volume of water (cm ), L is the length of the soil column (cm), A is the crosssectional area of the column, t is the total time required to get volume (s) and h is the hydraulic head. Essentially, the volume, V, of water that flows through the column during time, t, determines the saturated hydraulic conductivity. Limitations to this experiment primarily lie within the difficulty of determining the hydraulic conductivity of a saturated media. The movement within media, inflow of water, and air pockets present in the medium collectively impede on accuracy. Systems Dynamics Modeling Method The essence of systems dynamics lies in its focus on feedback mechanisms and rates of change over time. With the empirical data, or saturated hydraulic conductivity of coarse-grained soil, collected utilizing the constant head permeability, this portion of the study attempts to model the dynamic system by altering certain
3

parameters such as the change in head (h), cross-sectional area and length. Changing the aforementioned parameters could essentially allow for the simulation of falling head permeability used for fine grained soils. The formula for the falling head permeability is K = aL/At * ln(h0-h1) wherein a is the area of the burette, h0 is the initial height of water, h1 is the final height of water and t is the time required to get a head drop of h. The falling-head test essentially consists of measuring change in head and quantity of flow over time. The goal of this model is to attempt to simulate for conditions with falling head permeability (fine-grain soils) by using the saturated hydraulic conductivity estimate found using constant head permeability (coarse-grain soils). The ability to manipulate the flow (Q) by changing specified parameters: hydraulic conductivity (K), cross-sectional area (A), head loss (h) and length (L) and verify the results mathematically using relevant formulas will demonstrate a successful model. The flow equation used for the STELLA model is Q = KA h/L STELLA modeling is a technology that can be used to better understand the relationships between components of any system. It will also enable us to project changes into the future, subject to changes today. The stocks, or units which will change in time, is the exited water (volume) out of the tube in the permeameter and the hydraulic head. The flow into the exited volume stock (Figure.1) indicates a rate of change which is coincidentally termed the flow of water into the graduated cylinder (stock). The changeable parameters feeding into the flow are the variables in the equations already listed.

Fig.1 Stella Model for Constant and Falling Head Permeability

Stella Equation and Switches/Dials

Needless to say, one unit that is not included as a parameter in the STELLA model is time. Flow rates and hydraulic conductivities are in terms of volume and length per unit time respectively. Consequently, the functions used to compute flow rates will be different for different time units. Calculating flow per day (time step of one day) will differ from flow per minute (time step of one minute). A time step that progressively moves toward the termination at designated length, or DT, should have the same dimension as time. If DT is too large the model becomes numerically unstable. Likewise, if DT is too small it will take longer to run the model. In this study I used the common modeling DT values 0.5, 0.25, .0125. The instrumentation used in the experimental portion of this study was a constant/falling head permeameter and two graduated cylinders.

Results Constant Head Method Experimental DATA Volume (v) 50 100 150 200 250 Time (t) 9.7 17.3 26.9 33.6 42 Slope = 50 100 150 200 250 7.5 14.75 21.75 29.25 36.5 Slope = 50 100 150 200 250 3.7 7.25 11 14.6 18.2 Slope = 50 100 150 200 250 2.1 4.2 6.3 8.3 10.4 Slope = Flow Q (V/t) 5.154639175 5.780346821 5.576208178 5.952380952 5.952380952 5.8529 6.666666667 6.779661017 6.896551724 6.837606838 6.849315068 6.8449 13.51351351 13.79310345 13.63636364 13.69863014 13.73626374 13.709 23.80952381 23.80952381 23.80952381 24.09638554 24.03846154 23.996 hydraulic conductivity K 0.097081698 0.108866181 0.105021465 0.112106246 0.112106246 0.110232637 0.071150097 0.072356031 0.073603549 0.072974459 0.073099415 0.073052295 0.086533902 0.088324259 0.087320574 0.087719298 0.087960285 0.087785702 0.095290309 0.095290309 0.095290309 0.096438385 0.096206562 0.096036623

cross-sectional area (A) 45.6

head loss (h) 17 30 50 80

length (L) 14.6

Constant Head System (Comparative Graph) Number 1 2 3 4 0.11023 0.07305 0.08779 0.09603 K 5.8529 6.8449 13.709 23.996 Q

Falling Head Permeability (Comparative Graph) Number 1 2 3 4 0.11023 0.07305 0.08779 0.09603 K 5.8529 6.8449 13.709 23.996 Q

Falling Head Permeabilities at Various Head Lengths (standard h0=0.05cm) Head cm 0 17 30 50 80 Experimental TIME (s) 0 13 24 41 64 Stella TIME (s) 0 13.24 23.81 39.24 62.8 Relative Error ----------1.81% 0.80% 4.49% 1.91%

Head length vs. Time

90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 10 20 30 Time (s) 40 50 60 70 Head/Exited Volume

Head/Exited Volume vs. Time

Conclusion Based on the indicated results and parameters used in the model, this study concludes that the model is indeed efficacious in predicting hydraulic conductivities at various head lengths. The volume vs. time graphs as well as the comparative graphs (constant head permeability) displays a linear relationship found under a constant head system, wherein the exited volume is the changing variable and the other parameters remain constant. Under falling head conditions, the theory stands in the representation of the comparative graphs shown above. The rate of flow, Q, under falling head conditions, displays decay, which is the inverse of the natural log function present in the falling head calculation.

Soil Type Clean Gravel Coarse Sand Fine Sand Silty Clay Clay

k cm/sec 1.0 to 100 0.01 to 1.0 0.001 to 0.01 0.00001 to 0.001 Less Than 0.000001

Hydraulic Conductivities for various soil/clay types. Average K for experiment using coarse grained aquarium gravel (0.091776814)

Some potential sources of error in conducting both the constant and falling head experiments are air trapped in sample or sample not 100% saturated; soil was washed from the sample; some of the head loss occurred in the apparatus rather than in the sample; not starting and stopping stop watch at correct point; sample settling during test; sample disturbed by flowing water at inlet and significant figures.