Talk:Hydraulic conductivity

Geology Mid‑importance

	Geology portal Talk:Hydraulic conductivity is part of WikiProject Geology, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use geology resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.GeologyWikipedia:WikiProject GeologyTemplate:WikiProject GeologyGeology articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Soil Mid‑importance

	Earth sciences portal Hydraulic conductivity is within the scope of WikiProject Soil, which collaborates on Soil and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.SoilWikipedia:WikiProject SoilTemplate:WikiProject SoilSoil articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

Article doesn't dicuss the hydrolic engineering aspect of the subject

Why does "Transmissivity" re-direct here?

Dimensions?

No info on dimensions and commonly used units, could be useful, non? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.195.112.2 (talk) 14:23, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. In particular engineers tend to reduce head in feet with volume in cubic feet, even though head is really a measure of pressure. I would suggest going to SI for the units.

This becomes volume (m^3) * length (M) / ( Area (m^2) * pressure (Newtons/m^2) * time (sec) ) = M^4/(N*sec)

Danwoodard (talk) 21:54, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Empirical estimation

The Shepherd (1989) reference should be supplemented with a reference to Hazen equations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 52.129.8.47 (talk) 21:31, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The Hazen (1892, 1911) equation is $K=a(D_{10})^{2}$ . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.181.202.26 (talk) 21:43, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The note at the bottom of this section about $d_{10}$ and $d_{50}$ seems self-contradictory to someone learning about hydraulic conductivity. Is there a difference between $D_{10}$ and $d_{10}$ ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeff39 (talk • contribs) 17:22, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Upper/lower case "d" for diameter does not matter. I'm not sure if one is more common than the other, but I'll change them to the uppercase "D".+mt 16:16, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dynamic Viscosity

There is a typo with regard to the units, it reads "kg m^-1 s^-1" and it should be "kg m^-1s" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.5.12.125 (talk)

No, not a typo. The former is correct. Check your source again. +mt 03:06, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Experimental approach

Constant-head method

It appears you either skipped a step or assumed the reader would know the nomenclature.

Specifically, from the following two lines:

Q=Avt\,

Using Darcy's Law, $v=Ki\,$ ,

you jump to this:

yields $Q={\frac {AKht}{L}}$

While it's implicitly obvious (to a reader who can perform algebra), you don't explicitly state that $i={\frac {h}{L}}$ .

You also didn't define $i\,$ (hydraulic gradient?) or state that it's dimensionless.

Please consider revising for clarity--QLFixBoy (talk) 16:50, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Accommodated the comments of QLFixBoy and added sections "Resistance" and "Anisotropy". R.J.Oosterbaan (talk) 23:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I may be wrong, but doesn't "Q" stand for flow (ex ft3/second) not quantity (ft3)? If so, time should not be included in the formula. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 13:16, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In literature the symbol Q is generally used for quantity of flow per unit of time (discharge) indeed, but here it is clearly defined as a volume. One could consider to change the symbol Q in this article into V. - R.J.Oosterbaan (talk) 08:16, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Table of saturated hydraulic conductivity values

There appears to be an error in this table. The conversion factor between cm/sec and ft/day is about 3,000. The values here suggest a factor of 1,000.

I think that the table may have been mis-labeled; and that ft/day should actually be m/day.Davy p (talk) 10:27, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The table is intended to show relative orders of magnitude, not absolute magnitudes. The actual conversion from cm/sec → ft/day is 2.8346457×10³, and from cm/sec → m/day is 0.864×10³. These both round up/down to 10³, but you are correct that m/day is closer by a small margin. I think the intent is to show both SI and imperial units. +mt 23:26, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hydraulic conductivity

Changed line Q = Av to Q/t = Av. I'm pretty sure flow velocity is flow rate / area as opposed to flow / area. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VikiSturmann (talk • contribs) 11:42, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]