Complementary Effects of In-Stream Structures and Inset Floodplains on Solute Retention

Simple item page
dc.contributor.authorAzinheira, David Leeen
dc.contributor.committeechairHester, Erich T.en
dc.contributor.committeememberScott, Durelle T.en
dc.contributor.committeememberWiddowson, Mark A.en
dc.contributor.committeememberHession, W. Cullyen
dc.contributor.departmentCivil and Environmental Engineeringen
dc.date.accessioned2014-12-07T07:00:30Zen
dc.date.available2014-12-07T07:00:30Zen
dc.date.issued2013-06-14en
dc.description.abstractThe pollution of streams and rivers is a growing concern, and environmental guidance increasingly suggests stream restoration to improve water quality. �Solute retention in off channel storage zones such as hyporheic zones and floodplains is typically necessary for significant reaction to occur. �Yet the effects of two common restoration techniques, in stream structures and inset floodplains, on solute retention have not been rigorously compared. �We used MIKE SHE to model hydraulics and solute transport in the channel, inset floodplain, and hyporheic zone of a 2nd order stream. �We varied hydraulic conditions (winter baseflow, summer baseflow, and storm flow), geology (hydraulic conductivity), and stream restoration design parameters (inset floodplain length, and presence of in stream structures). �In stream structures induced hyporheic exchange during summer baseflow with a low groundwater table (~20% of the year), while floodplains only retained solutes during storm flow conditions (~1% of the year). �Flow through the hyporheic zone increased linearly with hydraulic conductivity, while residence times decreased linearly. �Flow through inset floodplains and residence times in both the channel and floodplains increased non linearly with the fraction of bank with floodplains installed. �The fraction of stream flow that entered inset floodplains was one to three orders of magnitude higher than that through the hyporheic zone, while the residence time and mass storage in the hyporheic zone was one to five orders of magnitude larger than that in floodplain segments. �Our model results suggest that in stream structures and inset floodplains are complementary practices.en
dc.description.degreeMaster of Scienceen
dc.format.mediumETDen
dc.identifier.othervt_gsexam:854en
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10919/51046en
dc.publisherVirginia Techen
dc.rightsIn Copyrighten
dc.rights.urihttp://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/en
dc.subjectHyporheicen
dc.subjectTransient storageen
dc.subjectSurface water groundwater exchangeen
dc.subjectPollutant attenuationen
dc.subjectStream restorationen
dc.titleComplementary Effects of In-Stream Structures and Inset Floodplains on Solute Retentionen
dc.typeThesisen
thesis.degree.disciplineCivil Engineeringen
thesis.degree.grantorVirginia Polytechnic Institute and State Universityen
thesis.degree.levelmastersen
thesis.degree.nameMaster of Scienceen

Files

Original bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Thumbnail Image
Name:
Azinheira_DL_T_2013.pdf
Size:
1.46 MB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Download

Collections

Masters Theses