2012
DOI: 10.2166/nh.2012.047
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Prediction of longitudinal dispersion coefficient using laboratory and field data: relationship comparisons

Abstract: Knowledge of dispersion of pollutants in streams is necessary for the determination of both the acceptable limits of effluent input and the concentration along the river course. In the far-field, the primary variation of concentration is in one direction and termed longitudinal dispersion; it is independent of the geometrical configuration and type of source. The longitudinal dispersion coefficient represents the dispersive characteristics of a stream and is required to compute the pollutant concentration at d… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 22 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 19 publications
(65 reference statements)
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The error ΔΨ in output is fundamentally the deviation sensitivity with ΔΩ being the error. The relative sensitivity can be expressed ¥ = (ΩΔΨ)/(ΨΔΩ) (Ahmad, 2013).…”
Section: Sensitivity Analysismentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The error ΔΨ in output is fundamentally the deviation sensitivity with ΔΩ being the error. The relative sensitivity can be expressed ¥ = (ΩΔΨ)/(ΨΔΩ) (Ahmad, 2013).…”
Section: Sensitivity Analysismentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The error ∆Ŷ in output is fundamentally the deviation sensitivity with ∆χ being the error. The relative sensitivity can be expressed ω = (χ.∆Ŷ)/(Ŷ.∆χ) [21].…”
Section: Sensitivity Analysismentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For training and testing, it requires data points. In this study, the data from 30 streams was collected from the open-source literature(Deng et al 2001;Kashefipour & Falconer 2002;Carr & Rehmann 2007;Riahi-Madvar et al 2009;Ahmad 2013). These streams had 495 sample points that were split into a training set with 396 sample points and a testing set with 99 sample points.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%