2005
DOI: 10.1016/j.advwatres.2004.09.001
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

On the relationship between indicators of geostatistical, flow and transport connectivity

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

5
263
0
1

Year Published

2009
2009
2015
2015

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 265 publications
(281 citation statements)
references
References 64 publications
5
263
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…In Case C, the variations are even larger than in Case D, which is a result of a better connectivity between aquifer and streambed. We used the transport connectivity indicator CT 1 by Knudby and Carrera (2005) to analyse the relation between connectivity and discharge variations. CT 1 was defined by Knudby and Carrera (2005) as the ratio between the average arrival time t AVE of a solute travelling through the model domain and the time t 5 at which 5% of the solute has arrived.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In Case C, the variations are even larger than in Case D, which is a result of a better connectivity between aquifer and streambed. We used the transport connectivity indicator CT 1 by Knudby and Carrera (2005) to analyse the relation between connectivity and discharge variations. CT 1 was defined by Knudby and Carrera (2005) as the ratio between the average arrival time t AVE of a solute travelling through the model domain and the time t 5 at which 5% of the solute has arrived.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…To analyze the effect of connectivity on risk, this section categorizes risk simulations in terms of a dynamic connectivity metric. The chosen connectivity metric CI is defined as the ratio of the effective hydraulic conductivity, K eff , to the geometric mean of K, K G [Knudby and Carrera, 2005],…”
Section: Impact Of Connectivitymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In this context, the variability of the hydraulic properties typically leads to preferential flow channels and lowpermeability areas where contaminants can be temporarily trapped by rate-limited mass transfer [e.g., Gomez-Hernandez and Wen, 1998;Zinn and Harvey, 2003;Bianchi et al, 2011]. The formation of these fast flow channels is typically associated with the presence of well-connected, highly permeable geological bodies or structures that can concentrate flow and solute transport [e.g., Knudby and Carrera, 2005; Incorporating hydrogeological uncertainty in human health predictions has been a topic of intense research in the past [e.g., Andričević and Cvetković, 1996;de Barros and Rubin, 2008;Cvetković and Molin, 2012;Rodak and Silliman, 2011;Andričević et al, 2012;Siirila and Maxwell, 2012;Atchley et al, 2013;de Barros and Fiori, 2014]. Probabilistic risk models allow one to determine the likelihood of risk exceeding a given regulatory threshold value [Tartakovsky, 2007], to delineate the spatial distribution of a plume for monitoring adaptation or intensification [James and Gorelick, 1994;Smalley et al, 2000;Maxwell et al, 2007;Fernandez-Garcia et al, 2012] and to better allocate characterization efforts to reduce the overall uncertainty of a given environmental performance metric [e.g., de Barros et al, 2009].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Dynamic connectivity metrics involve the physical processes of flow or transport. They are estimated experimentally or with modelling such as effective hydraulic conductivity [7].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%