300 likes | 315 Views
This study aims to compare discharge measurements in a gravel-bed stream using tracer-dilution and current-meter methods. By evaluating the effectiveness and limitations of each method, the research sheds light on accurately assessing stream flow in varying conditions.
E N D
Comparison of Tracer-Dilution and Current-Meter Measurements in a Small Gravel-Bed Stream, Little Lost Man Creek, California Gary W. Zellweger, Ronald J. Avanzino, and Kenneth E. Bencala (1989)
Purpose of Study • Present and compare discharge measurements taken by two different methods: • Tracer-dilution • Current-meter • Suggest how much discharge is flowing through the channel gravel
Background • Current-meter technique preferred method to determine discharge • Issues with current-meter method: • Shallow depths o Rough bottom • Flow through gravel o Discharge variation • Continuous tracer-dilution methods can accommodate these factors
Tracer-Dilution Method • Can be used to calculate discharge at multiple sites • Requirements: • Tracer thoroughly mixed with stream • Conservative tracer
Tracer-Dilution Method …Plateau Concentration • Can be used to calculate discharge at multiple sites • Requirements: • Tracer thoroughly mixed with stream • Conservative tracer Tracer injection. Concentration rises to…
Tracer-Dilution Method • Can be used to calculate discharge at multiple sites • Requirements: • Tracer thoroughly mixed with stream • Conservative tracer
Tracer-Dilution Method • Stream discharge below injection point: Qb = Qi (Ci –Ca) (Cb – Ca) • Qb = Stream discharge below the injection point • Qi = Injectant discharge • Ci = Tracer concentration in injectant • Ca = Tracer concentration in stream above injection point • Cb= Tracer concentration in stream below injection point
Site Description • Little Lost Man Creek, CA • Coastal 3rd order stream • 10 km length, N-NW flow • Late summer flows 6 L/s • Winter high flows 5,700 L/s • Study reach = 330 m • Poorly sorted, sand-boulder • Gravel sediments > 1 m thick
Tracer-Dilution Method • Cl-Li pumped into stream continuously (8d) • Chloride concentration = 170.1 g/L • Daily injection rate = 37.29±.32 mL/min • Mixing length = 300m • Secondary injection on 7thday • Na, Cl, rhodamine WT (24 h) • Mixing length = 25m • Sampled hourly with automatic samplers • 300m above • 330m below
Tracer-Dilution Method • Cl analysis: • Filtered and stored w/o light, few months • Dionex ion chromatograph • Na analysis: • Filtered and stored w/o light, few months • Spectrophotometer • Rhodamine WT analysis: • Stored in glass bottle w/o light < 10d • Fluorescence measured, Fluorometer
Current-Meter Method • Discharge measured with current meter • Three sampling days • Two measurements/site/day • Modified 4 locations • Depth and ave. velocity • Measured at 17 to 25 vertical sections • Stream discharge determined by summing flows through each measured subsection
Discussion • Calculated discharges: • Current-meter 13.0 L/s • Tracer (25m) 15.9 L/s • Tracer (300m) 14.4 L/s • Average 13.0 L/s
Discussion • Gravel zone = 25% of channel flow • Gravel moves in and out between the surface water and gravel zone • Current-meter = surface flow only • Tracer 300m = most mixing
Conclusion • Water in gravel zone moves down channel as underflow • Can be measureable • Affects discharge measurements • Tracer-dilution and current-meter methods can yield different values • Tracer-dilution method yields different results over different stream lengths
Testing and Comparison of Four Ionic Tracers to MeasureStream Flow Loss by Multiple Tracer Injection Gary W. Zellweger (1994)
Purpose of Study • Toxic metal transport, need to know • Where stream is losing water • How much water is being lost • Calculate discharge for 4 tracers used in simultaneous multiple tracer dilution • Li, Na, Cl, Br • Define limitations of method
Site Description • St. Kevin Gulch, CO • 3rd order stream • Flat, wetlands source • Summer flow = • 10 L/s • pH ~3.6 in August • Study reach = 570 m • Upper stream = forested, steep, narrow • Lower stream = smaller gradient, little vegetation, minimal hillslope
Study Description • Tracer solution continuously injected at 5 wells • Lithium chloride and sodium bromide in stream water • Injection sites ~100m apart • Parshall flumes installed, 4 sites
Results • Only 3 injection sites operated at a time
Discussion • Precision of 2% • Discharge decreasing downstream (8%) • More effective to use different tracers at each injection site • All tracers were conservative in St. Kevin Gulch (116m reach) • 4-18% difference in discharge measurements between flume and tracers
Evaluating the Reliability of the Stream Tracer Approach to Characterize Stream-Subsurface Water Exchange Judson W. Harvey, Brian J. Wagner and Kenneth E Bencala (1996)
Quantifying Hyporheic Interactions:An in-depth look at three studies Geology 230, CSUS, Spring 2013 Presented by Emily Siegel and Jessica Bean