Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> Graf <br /> HOURS AFTER INJECTION <br />0: 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 <br />w <br />t- 25 <br />:J <br />0: <br />W <br />Q, <br />'" 20 <br />::I: <br /><I; Nautiloid <br />0: <br />Cl <br />0 <br />0: 15 Little <br />0 <br />~ Colorado <br />;!; Nevill's <br />Z 10 National <br />0 <br />~ <br /><I; <br />0: <br />t- <br />Z 5 <br />w <br />0 <br />Z <br />0 <br />0 <br />w 0 <br />> 6 9 10 11 <br />0 <br /> MAY 1991 <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />Figure 5. Variation of Dye Concentration with Time at Sampling Sites, Unsteady-Flow Traveltime <br />Measurement, Grand Canyon Reach, May 6-11. 1991. <br /> <br /> 120 <br /> ... Unsteady flow. May 6-11. 1991 0 <br />'" 100 o Steady flow, May 20-25, 1991 ... <br />0: 0 <br />:J <br />0 <br />J: <br />Z 80 ~ <br />0 <br />5 60 <br />0: 0 <br />t- <br />Z <br />W <br />0 {il <br />0 40 <br />t- ~ <br />w <br />::I: <br />~ 20 ~ <br /> h <br /> ; <br /> 0 <br /> 0 100 200 300 400 <br /> DISTANCE FROM INJECTION, IN KILOMETERS <br /> <br />Figure 6. Relation of Traveltime of the Dye-Cloud Centroid to Distance Traveled, Grand Canyon Reach. <br /> <br />amount of dye injected, but the rate of decrease was <br />about the same as that for steady flow - the coeffi- <br />cient in the equation above is different, but the expo- <br />nent is the same for the two measurements. <br />For steady flow, dye-cloud variance increased with <br />distance traveled and with traveltime (Table 3 and <br />Figure 8). In order to compare results with those from <br /> <br />other streams, an equation of the form given above <br />was fitted to the variance and traveltime of the peak- <br />concentration data. The exponent was found to be <br />0.80, lower than any of the measured values present- <br />ed in a summary of dispersion data by Nordin and <br />Sabol (1974) and lower than that predicted by the <br />one-dimensional theory. Variance increased with <br /> <br />WATER RESOURCES BULLETIN <br /> <br />274 <br />