HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Abstract Full Text Free Full Text (PDF) Free Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in ISI Web of Science Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (3) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Bockgård, N. Articles by Niemi, A. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Bockgård, N. Articles by Niemi, A. GeoRef GeoRef Citation Agricola Articles by Bockgård, N. Articles by Niemi, A. Related Collections Effective Parameters Fractured Rock Variably Saturated Fluid Flow

Role of Rock Heterogeneity on Lateral Diversion of Water Flow at the Soil–Rock Interface

Dep. of Earth Sciences, Uppsala Univ., Villav. 16, SE-752 36 Uppsala, Sweden

View larger version (13K): [in a new window]   Fig. 1. The model domain and types of boundary conditions used in the simulations. The slope of the land surface and soil–rock interface is 5%. The model domain is a small part of a large-scale flow system (right).

View larger version (18K): [in a new window]   Fig. 2. (a) Standard deviation and (b) correlation length of the logarithm of saturated hydraulic conductivity vs. scale of measurement in various fractured rock systems. Compiled from Andersson et al. (1989), Liedholm (1991), Armitage et al. (1996), Norris et al. (1997), Birkholzer et al. (1999), Finsterle (2000), and Niemi et al. (2000).

View larger version (14K): [in a new window]   Fig. 3. Flux into the rock domain as a function of the specified hydraulic head at the lower boundary. Results are for homogeneous simulations with different net infiltration rates and various hydraulic conductivities of the rock.

View larger version (20K): [in a new window]   Fig. 4. Position of the water table for a net infiltration of 200 mm yr–1 and rock hydraulic conductivity of 10–8 m s–1 based on (a) the homogeneous simulations and (b) the mean of the heterogeneous simulations. Lines 2 through 6 correspond to various specified values for hydraulic head at the lower boundary (units in meters). The upper boundary of the model and the soil–rock interface are indicated with broken lines.

View larger version (28K): [in a new window]   Fig. 5. Frequency distribution of the total flux for the soil–rock interface for (a) 2 m, (b) 3 m, (c) 4 m, (d) 5 m, (e) 6 m, and (f) 7 m specified hydraulic head at the lower boundary of the model.

View larger version (18K): [in a new window]   Fig. 6. The total flux through the rock domain as a function of specified hydraulic head at the lower boundary. The dots correspond to individual realizations, the solid line to the arithmetic mean of the realizations. The error bars indicate the standard deviation. The dashed line shows results from the homogeneous simulations.

View larger version (84K): [in a new window]   Fig. 7. Example of a stochastic realization with a large flux into bedrock.

View larger version (85K): [in a new window]   Fig. 8. Example of a stochastic realization with a small flux into bedrock.

View larger version (38K): [in a new window]   Fig. 9. Total flux into rock as a function of geometric mean of effective hydraulic conductivity.