Thesis (M.S.)--West Virginia University, 2003. / Title from document title page. Document formatted into pages; contains viii, 119 p. : ill. (some col.), maps (some col.). Includes abstract. Includes bibliographical references.

A tilting bed flume study was made to examine the relationships between velocity, suspended sediment and infiltration rate in alluvial channels for velocities from 2 to 5 feet per second and suspended sediment up to 0.6 percent. Preliminary experiments using samples from Rhllito Creek near Tucson, Arizona to define limits for the flume study included mechanical analyses of bed sediments, permeability and infiltration tests, and analyses of suspended sediment in flood waters. Flume experiments using bed materials from Rillito Creek were made with constant velocity and variable suspended sediment content, then with constant suspended sediment and variable velocity. Considerable variability was found in the mechanical analyses, permeability and infiltration tests, and suspended sediment content for samples from different locations. The flume studies indicated a direct relationship between velocity and infiltration rate and an inverse relationship between the suspended sediment content and infiltration rate in the ranges tested. Very poor correlation was found between the preliminary permeability and infiltration tests and the flume infiltration rates, but good correlation was obtained for the flume results with the flow losses and natural recharge occurring in the river channels in the Tucson area.

Thesis (Ph. D. - Civil Engineering)--University of Arizona. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 98-102).

Groundwater flow in alluvial valleys consists of two components, baseflow and underflow. The baseflow component of the Darcy flux flows normal to the river and contributes to the surface flow. The underflow component moves downstream in the same direction as the river but at a much slower rate. Underflow is important in Texas because the conjunctive use of groundwater and surface water is regulated by controlling the diversion of underflow by wells. Land owners in Texas are legally entitled to unrestricted use of the underground water beneath their property. Stream underflow, however, has been expressly excluded from the definition of underground water. The distinction is important because it allows the State to legally restrict the non-domestic pumpage of groundwater (in an "underflow zone") near streams. Regulators are interested in controlling pumpage near rivers in order to prevent streamflow depletion. Historically, the underflow exemption has not been well recognized by the courts. In large measure, this may be due to the fact that our understanding of underflow in alluvial valleys is incomplete. If the underflow rule is to be successfully implemented, a complete understanding of the nature and occurrence of underflow is imperative. This study was initiated to: 1) determine the hydrogeologic factors that control underflow (and baseflow) in alluvial valley aquifers in Texas and the United States; and 2) to examine the suitability of the underflow criterion as a management tool for the prevention of streamflow depletion by wells. To accomplish this, a data base of 23 alluvial river basins was compiled and a 3-dimensional digital model of a hypothetical alluvial valley aquifer was constructed. Examples from the data base indicate that alluvial aquifers can be classified into three types based on the predominant regional groundwater flow direction: baseflow-dominated, underflow-dominated, and mixed flow. Flow patterns can be transient, however, and respond rapidly to changing river stage if the aquifer and the riverbed are highly permeable. Therefore, the distinction must be made between local, transient underflow and baseflow occurring near the river and regional, steady state underflow and baseflow away from the river. Underflow dominated aquifers are found in classic bedload depositional settings which are characterized by high channel gradient, high width to depth ratio, low channel sinuosity, and low river penetration. Linear regressions performed on the parameter values in the data base verify the validity of the data. The degree of correlation provides the basis for a method of estimating the predominant regional groundwater flow direction in an alluvial aquifer based on geomorphologic and morphometric data. The results from the digital model agree with the findings from the data base. Digital simulations indicate that the amount of underflow is directly related to the channel gradient, the amount of recharge, the aquifer hydraulic conductivity, and the streambed hydraulic conductivity. The riverbed hydraulic conductivity is the most critical hydraulic factor controlling the amount of underflow. The output from the model is 100 percent underflow at low values of riverbed permeability. Both the model results and published field data do not support the existence of a significant local "underflow zone" adjacent to rivers in large alluvial systems. Close to the river, the baseflow component may predominate even in regionally underflow-dominated systems due to the influence of high transverse valley gradients. There are many problems associated with the use of underflow as a management tool. The definition is vague and ambiguous. Underflow can be transient and spatially variable. Texas alluvial systems are baseflow dominated and there is probably no significant "underflow zone" near rivers. Lastly, the presence of underflow has been difficult to prove in court. It is the finding of this study that the underflow criterion is insufficient to prevent streamflow depletion by wells. The underflow rule in the Texas Water Code should be reconsidered, or perhaps abandoned, in favor of criteria that are more justifiable. / text

Thesis (M.S.)--West Virginia University, 1999. / Title from document title page. Document formatted into pages; contains ix, 61 p. : ill. (some col.), maps (some col.) Includes abstract. Includes bibliographical references (p. 55-59).

Thesis (PhD)--University of Montana, 2009. / Title from author supplied metadata. Contents viewed on May 14, 2010. Includes bibliographical references.

Because the Coastal Plain of southeastern Virginia has not been extensively studied, thirty random samples associated with Blackwater and Nottoway rivers were collected in the spring of 1987 from Surry, Sussex, and Southampton counties. Soil classification as well as mineralogical, chemical, and physical analysis were conducted for all samples. The purposes of this investigation were to: (1)classify the soils in this area, (2) determine the distribution of sand and clay minerals, (3) examine the weathering effect on clay minerals on different position of the landscape for different parent material sources. The soils examined classified as follow: Aquic Hapludults 43% > Typic Hapludults 26.6% > Ultic Hapludalfs 10% > Humic Hapludults 3% = Typic Rhodudlts 3% = Aquic Hapludalfs 3% = Typic Udipsamment 3% = Typic Quartzpsamment 3% = Psammentic Hapludalfs. Qualitative analysis of clay minerals revealed that kaolinite and hydroxy interlayer vermiculite were the dominant clay minerals; that montmorillonite, mica, gibbsite quartz, and vermiculite were of lesser quantities; that chlorite, feldspar and interstratified minerals were of trace amounts. Kaolinite represents about 21-70%, HlV 11-60%, montmorillonite 0-20%, mica 0-16%, gibbsite 0-13%, quartz 1-12%, and vermiculite 0-10%. The presence of these minerals were mainly related to the acid reaction of the soil media, which was essentially attributed to Al and H ions in soil solution. From the past history and geological composition of the Piedmont it is assumed that kaolinitic minerals were transported and sedimented in the Coastal Plain. Hydroxy-interlayer vermiculite minerals was weathering from vermiculite because most of the Al was adsorbed by vermiculite to form HIV. Therfore, gibbsite was not precipitated. Montmorillonite was assumed to have formed from mica minerals. That was substantiated by statistical analysis which showed a high negative correlation between gibbsite and vermiculite (r=0.46, n=30) and between montmorillonite and mica (r=-0.6, n=10). / Master of Science