See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/248808643

Application of the transient storage model to analyze advective hyporheic

exchange with deep and shallow sediment beds

Article  in  Water Resources Research · July 2003

DOI: 10.1029/2002WR001344

CITATIONS READS
62 139

3 authors, including:

Mattia Zaramella Andrea Marion

University of Padova University of Padova
38 PUBLICATIONS   991 CITATIONS    66 PUBLICATIONS   2,455 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Hytech View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Mattia Zaramella on 17 September 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 WATER RESOURCES RESEARCH, VOL. 39, NO. 7, 1198, doi:10.1029/2002WR001344, 2003

Application of the transient storage model to analyze advective

hyporheic exchange with deep and shallow sediment beds
Mattia Zaramella1 and Aaron I. Packman
Department of Civil Engineering, Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois, USA

Andrea Marion
Department of Hydraulic, Maritime, and Geotechnical Engineering, University of Padua, Padua, Italy

Received 28 March 2002; revised 5 February 2003; accepted 21 March 2003; published 31 July 2003.

[1] Hydrodynamic exchange between a stream and its bed plays an important role in
solute transport in rivers. Stream-subsurface exchange is known to occur due to several
different mechanisms and different approaches have been used to model the resulting
solute transport, but there has been little investigation of the ability of the various models
to represent specific exchange processes. This work evaluates the ability of the
semiempirical transient storage model (TSM) to represent advective hyporheic exchange
driven by bed form-induced pore water flows. The TSM is based on the idealized
hypothesis that the flux of contaminants is proportional to the difference in concentration
between the bed and the stream. To evaluate the ability of this simplified mass transfer
relationship to reproduce advective hyporheic exchange, we apply the TSM to data sets for
the exchange of conservative solutes with sand beds in laboratory flumes where bed form-
induced pumping is the dominant exchange mechanism. The results show that the
simplified expressions used in the TSM can represent some but not all aspects of the
pumping process. The TSM can represent advective exchange with shallow beds that have
a defined exchange layer restricted by the presence of an impermeable boundary. In
this case, transient storage parameters can be directly related to the streamflow conditions
and the channel geometry. However, the TSM does not do a good job of representing
exchange with a relatively deep sediment bed, where flow along different advective paths
in the bed yields a wide distribution of exchange timescales. INDEX TERMS: 1871
Hydrology: Surface water quality; 1860 Hydrology: Runoff and streamflow; 1832 Hydrology: Groundwater
transport; KEYWORDS: hyporheic exchange, transient storage, solute transport, streams, stream-subsurface
interactions, modeling
Citation: Zaramella, M., A. I. Packman, and A. Marion, Application of the transient storage model to analyze advective hyporheic
exchange with deep and shallow sediment beds, Water Resour. Res., 39(7), 1198, doi:10.1029/2002WR001344, 2003.

1. Introduction boundary flux term to represent exchange with the subsur-

[2] The prediction of the exchange between a river and the
surrounding subsurface is a fundamental component of the
analysis of contaminant transport and fate in watersheds. A
considerable amount of recent work has focused on the
development of a comprehensive view of the stream-aquifer
continuum and an integrated understanding of watershed
processes and their implications for ecosystem health and
contamination [Brunke and Gonser, 1997; Winter et al.,
1998; Jones and Mulholland, 2000; U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), 2000; Medina et al., 2002].
As discussed in the review by Packman and Bencala [2000],
stream-subsurface exchange has typically been considered
from the perspective of the stream, i.e., based on modeling
the effect of exchange on in-stream solute transport. Typical
examples of this approach are the use of an idealized channel
1 exchange parameters are often used for other applications
Now at Department of Hydraulic, Maritime, and Geotechnical
Engineering, University of Padua, Padua, Italy.
Copyright 2003 by the American Geophysical Union.
0043-1397/03/2002WR001344$09.00
HWC
face [Bencala and Walters, 1983; Schnoor et al., 1987;
O’Connor, 1988; Wörman et al., 1998], models that consider
exchange with dead zones as a lumped dispersive process
[Young and Wallis, 1986; Lees et al., 2000], and analysis of
the in-stream response to exchange using hydrologic time
series [Castro and Hornberger, 1991].
[3] The transient storage model (TSM) [Bencala and
Walters, 1983] is the most commonly used representation
of hyporheic exchange. Since its development, this model
has seen wide use for the analysis of contaminant and
nutrient exchange with the hyporheic zone. The model is
applied by obtaining TSM exchange parameters from the
results of a solute tracer injection experiment conducted in
the stream reach(es) of interest. The exchange rate and the
depth of the storage zone are obtained by fitting the model
to observed solute breakthrough curves. Once derived, the
such as reactive transport modeling. A standard numerical
code, OTIS, has been developed and made available by the
U.S. Geological Survey to assist with application of the
TSM to solute transport data [Runkel, 1998].
4-1
HWC 4-2 ZARAMELLA ET AL.: HYPORHEIC EXCHANGE WITH SEDIMENT BEDS
[4] The TSM will always be limited by the fact that it is
based on a highly idealized and simplified view of hypo-
rheic exchange. Because the model is fit to observed in-
stream solute concentration data, there is uncertainty in the
estimation of the underlying transport parameters. This
uncertainty is exacerbated by both limitations in making
field measurements and the underlying parameterization of
solute transport using the in-stream dispersion coefficient,
hyporheic exchange rate coefficient, and storage zone area.
This uncertainty often obscures important results, such as
the relationship between transient storage and the fluxes of
reactive substances of interest (e.g., nutrients, contami-
nants). For example, TSM parameters have been found to
be well-correlated with nutrient uptake in some streams and
poorly correlated in others, and the lack of understanding of
the relationship between TSM parameters with actual hypo-
rheic flow paths greatly hinders the analysis of process
controls on nutrient uptake [Hall et al., 2002].
[5] Evaluation of TSM application to field data and
sensitivity analysis of the model parameters have improved
estimation of TSM parameters by suggesting strategies to
design injection experiments so as to obtain the greatest
information on hyporheic exchange. The study of Harvey
et al. [1996] motivated detailed evaluation of the meaning
of TSM parameters by demonstrating that TSM parameters
derived by curve-fitting in-stream solute breakthrough
preferentially reflected transport through high-permeability
regions adjacent to the stream channel and did not repre-
sent slower transport through the surrounding alluvium.
Subsequently, Choi et al. [2000] examined a wider range
of physical features that produce solute storage and sug-
gested that exchange with multiple storage zones could
often be reliably represented in the TSM with one modeled
storage compartment. These types of evaluations have
been combined with formal sensitivity analysis to yield
suggestions to improve the design of stream tracer experi-
ments and the estimation of hyporheic exchange parame-
ters from the experimental results [Wagner and Harvey,
1997; Harvey and Wagner, 2000]. One of the primary
goals of these previous evaluations was to reduce uncer-
tainty that arises from the limitations in measurement
methods and other experimental procedures used in field
experiments.
[6] We seek here to clarify the limitations inherent in the
exchange parameterization utilized in the TSM by apply-
ing the model to a well-characterized laboratory experi-
mental system dominated by a single, well-understood
hyporheic exchange process: bed form-induced advective
transport. Ready access to the recirculating flumes used for
these experiments provides extensive and detailed infor-
mation on the streamflow, sediment bed, and hyporheic
zone that can be used to relate best fit TSM parameters to
the system geometry and flow conditions. The extremely
high quality of the laboratory data allows a considerably
more detailed evaluation of TSM processes and parameters
than previous authors have been able to achieve using field
data.
[7] The results of this work indicate the extent to which
the TSM can represent advective exchange between the
stream and streambed. Because advective flows are known
to be an important component of hyporheic exchange, the
results have considerable implications for the analysis of
surface water/groundwater interactions, contaminant trans-
port, and benthic ecological processes in streams and
rivers.
2. Exchange Models: Theory
[8] Hyporheic exchange results from a number of differ-
ent but related processes, such as advective flows induced in
the streambed and banks or through meanders [Hynes,
1983; Thibodeax and Boyle, 1987; Harvey and Bencala,
1993]. Recent research has focused on the development of
new models that explicitly predict the exchange due to
individual transport processes. One example of this ap-
proach is the bed form-induced pumping model [Savant et
al., 1987; Elliott and Brooks, 1997a; Packman et al.,
2000a], which theoretically derives the exchange that results
from hydrodynamic interaction of the streamflow with the
streambed sediments. This model has been validated by
extensive testing against experimental data for exchange
with sediment beds in laboratory flumes under controlled
flow conditions [Elliott and Brooks, 1997b; Packman et al.,
2000b; Packman and Brooks, 2001; Marion et al., 2002]. In
addition, Wörman et al. [2002] have recently developed
theory to allow application of the pumping model to solute
transport in natural streams and used it to analyze the
transport of tritium in a small agricultural stream. The results
of this study indicate that tritium retention in the streambed
was characterized better by the pumping model than by the
TSM.
2.1. Advective Pumping Model
[9] The transfer of solutes between the stream and
streambed can be predicted by analytical evaluation of the
subsurface flow paths induced by streamflow over bed
forms. For the case where the streambed has an imperme-
able layer at depth db, the field of pore water velocities in
the bed is given by Packman et al. [2000a]:
u* ¼  cosð x*Þ½tanhðdb*Þ sinhð y*Þ þ coshð y*Þ
ð1Þ
v* ¼  sinð x*Þ½tanhðdb*Þ coshð y*Þ þ sinhð y *Þ
where x* = kx and y* = ky are coordinates parallel and
perpendicular to the average bed surface normalized by the
bed form wave number k = 2p/l, where l is the wavelength
of the bed forms, and db* = kdb is the normalized bed depth.
The horizontal and vertical velocities are normalized by u* =
u/kKhm and v* = v/kKhm, where K is the hydraulic
conductivity of the bed sediments and hm is the half
amplitude of the sinusoidal head variation over the dune.
The driving mechanism for pumping exchange is this
periodic head distribution at the bed surface, which is
induced by flow-boundary interactions.
[10] If the normalized bed depth is sufficiently large, so
that tanh(db*) ffi 1, equation 1 reduces to the solution for a
semi-infinite bed [Elliott and Brooks, 1997a]:
u* ¼ e y* cosð x*Þ
ð2Þ
v* ¼ e y* sinð x*Þ:
The criteria tanh(db*) ffi 1 can thus be used to define two
regimes of exchange behavior. Equation 2 describes the
 ZARAMELLA ET AL.: HYPORHEIC EXCHANGE WITH SEDIMENT BEDS
velocity field in a deep bed, while equation 1 is needed to
describe the velocity field in a shallow bed (where tanh(db*)
is sensibly smaller than 1).
[11] The velocity field allows us to analyze mass transfer
between the stream and the hyporheic zone. An average

residence time function, R(t), can be defined as the proba-
bility that a particle that enters the bed at time t = 0 is still in
the bed at time t. The residence time function can be
calculated numerically from the velocity field using a finite
difference particle-tracking scheme [Elliott and Brooks,
1997a]. Once the residence time function is known, the
mass transfer from the stream to the subsurface can be
evaluated by solving a convolution integral of the residence
time function and the in-stream concentration. Wörman et
al. [2002] also present a model which uses moment methods
to relate the subsurface residence time distribution to in-
stream solute concentrations. Accumulated exchange is
conveniently represented by the average depth of solute
penetration into the subsurface:
2pk mðt Þ
m*ðtÞ ¼
q C0
where m(t) is the exchanged mass per unit bed surface area
normalized by C0, the reference concentration in the stream,
and q is the porosity of the bed sediments. Time can also be
normalized based on the characteristic pumping velocity
and length scale as:
k 2 Khm
t* ¼ t:
q
The prediction of m*(t*) is the basic pumping model output
for exchange with the streambed, as described by Elliott and
Brooks [1997a, 1997b].
2.2. Transient Storage Model (TSM)
[12] In the TSM, mass flux across the sediment-water
interface is assumed to be proportional to the difference in
tracer concentration between the stream water and the pore
water in the bed. The proportionality coefficient is a mass
transfer coefficient, a, with units of inverse time. This
transient storage exchange coefficient is assumed to be a
time-invariant property of the system. This model idealizes
the hyporheic zone as a well-mixed ‘‘storage zone’’ of
defined volume. The basic formulation of the TSM is:
dCb A tal data from laboratory flumes.
¼ a ðC w  C b Þ
dt As
where Cb and Cw indicate the tracer concentration in the pore
water and in the stream, As is the cross-sectional area of the
storage zone, and A the area of the stream. The in-stream
tracer concentration can be related to mass transfer to the bed
by including a boundary exchange term in the advection-
dispersion equation for the stream. When the stream is
sufficiently wide so that the hypothesis of a large rectangular
section can be applied, the analysis can be performed per
unit stream width. In this case, the TSM becomes:
dCb ðtÞ d S ða*; d*; T*Þ ¼
¼ a ½Cw ðtÞ  Cb ðt Þ
dt d 0
where d is the depth of the hyporheic zone that undergoes
exchange with the stream and d is the depth of the main
stream.
HWC 4-3
[13] A normalized expression of the TSM was developed
in Marion et al. [2003], in order to facilitate comparison of
the TSM with the pumping model, and we will use this
formulation here to apply the TSM to analyze flume experi-
ments in which pumping is known to be the dominant
mechanism of exchange. The normalized TSM exchange
rate and bed depth are defined as:
adq
a* ¼
kKhm ð7Þ
d* ¼ kd:
The dimensionless equation for the TSM then becomes:
dCb*ðt*Þ a*
¼ ½Cw *ðt*Þ  Cb *ðt*Þ ð8Þ
dt* d*
where C* = C(t)/C0 and C0 is the initial tracer concentration
in the stream. The TSM is applied to experimental data by
coupling equation 8 with a normalized mass balance that
ð3Þ links the concentration in the water column with the
concentration in the storage zone. For a closed system such
as a laboratory flume, this is
d*
Cb*ðt Þ ¼ ½1  Cw *ðtÞ ð9Þ
qd*
By coupling equations 8 and 9, the transient storage model
ð4Þ can be solved and applied to analyze laboratory data sets.
Other methods are required to couple the in-stream and
storage zone concentrations for field applications. Normally,
in-stream solute transport is assumed to follow the
advection-dispersion equation with a boundary exchange
term for the storage zone [Bencala and Walters, 1983]. The
transient storage parameters a and As are then found by
fitting the TSM to the experimentally observed break-
through curves of a solute injected into the stream.
Parameter optimization (fitting) can be done by either
nonlinear regression to the measured data [Runkel, 1998] or
by matching the moments of the observed breakthrough
curves [Wörman et al., 2002]. In these approaches, it is
assumed that a and As are independent parameters. We will
evaluate this assumption by applying the TSM to model
advective pumping exchange and by analyzing experimen-
ð5Þ
2.3. Fitting the TSM to the Pumping Model
[14] The TSM will be fit to the pumping model and
the experimental data using the procedure described by
Zaramella [2000] and Marion et al. [2003]. Optimization
methods are used to determine the values of TSM param-
eters a* and d* that best fit the TSM exchange curve to the
pumping exchange curve. The optimal TSM parameters are
found by minimizing the integral of the mean square
difference between the models:
ZT *
1
½
ða*; d*; t*Þ2 dt*; ð10Þ
ð6Þ T*
where
*(a*,d*,t*) = m*P  m*TSM is the difference in
exchange between the pumping model and the TSM at time
t*. The TSM will also be fit to data obtained from
HWC 4-4 ZARAMELLA ET AL.: HYPORHEIC EXCHANGE WITH SEDIMENT BEDS

Table 1. Conditions in the Experiments Used to Test the Transient Storage Model
Experiment l, cm H, cm db, cm U, cm/s Volume, L d* d*
b tanh d*
b Tracer dg, mm q
+
Packman, run 6 21 1.0 5.7 16.5 665 4.41 1.71 0.936 Li 0.480 0.325
Packman, run 12 31 1.5 9.5 15.7 635 3.35 1.95 0.961 Li+ 0.480 0.325
Packman, run 14 29 1.6 9.1 15.9 558 3.08 1.98 0.963 Li+ 0.480 0.325
Packman, run 15 23 1.5 9.7 12.6 616 4.27 2.65 0.990 Li+ 0.480 0.325
Marion, ripples 26 0.5 40 28 10,000 19.78 9.67 1.000 NaCl 0.85 0.38
Marion, dunes 50 1.2 40 24 10,000 10.29 5.07 1.000 NaCl 0.85 0.38
Packman and MacKay 17 1.4 10.3 23.6 826 13.73 3.80 0.999 NaCl 0.550 0.38
Eylers, run 5 22 3.2 22 14.7 105 4.62 6.31 1.000 Li+ 0.500 0.325
Eylers, run 6 21 3.0 22 11.0 114 5.34 6.71 1.000 Li+ 0.500 0.325
Eylers, run 8 24 3.6 22 8.6 125 5.05 5.76 1.000 Li+ 0.500 0.325
Eylers, run 10 19 3.2 22 9.6 117 6.08 7.73 1.000 Li+ 0.500 0.325
Eylers, run 11 27 3.1 22 7.5 103 3.65 5.07 1.000 Li+ 0.195 0.325
Eylers, run 12 21 2.1 22 11.6 83 3.85 6.58 1.000 Li+ 0.500 0.325
Eylers, run 14 19 2.2 22 11.7 84 4.25 7.20 1.000 Li+ 0.500 0.325

laboratory flume experiments, where there is initially a
tracer concentration C0 everywhere in the stream and no
tracer initially in the hyporheic zone. In this case, the in-
stream concentration, C, decreases over time due to
hyporheic exchange. A discretized form of equation 10 is
used to fit the TSM to experimental data:
N n
1 X
S ða*; d*; T*Þ ¼ ½m*i ðt*i Þ  m*TSM ðt*i ; a*; d*Þ2
t*i
T * i¼1
ð11Þ
where N is the total number data points in the time period
t* = 0 to T*.
[15] Optimal transient storage parameters will be found
using equation 11 to provide the best approximation of the
total mass transfer to the bed over a defined timescale T*. In
this analysis, T* represents the time over which exchange has
occurred, i.e., the elapsed time since the start of the exper-
iment. Similarly, for any fitting timescale, T*, minimization
of S according to equation 10 yields optimal values of a*(T*)
and d*(T*) to fit the TSM to the pumping model exchange
curve. Optimal values of a*(T*) and d*(T*) can then be
found for a wide range of fitting timescales T* in order to
evaluate the ability of the TSM to generally reproduce either
the experimental data or the pumping exchange curve. If the
TSM provides an adequate idealized representation of the
pumping process, it should be able to represent pumping
exchange with constant values of a* and d* for all T*.
marized by Eylers et al. [1995]) was selected due to long
experiment durations, and (4) that of Packman and MacKay
[2003] was selected due to the use of streambeds of
intermediate depth and the acquisition of continuous solute
exchange data.
[17] All of these experiments were conducted using similar
methodologies. All experiments had stationary bed forms
o
and steady, fully turbulent, uniform flow. Furthermore every
experiment was conducted starting with a known amount of
tracer in the recirculating water and an uncontaminated bed.
The volumes of recirculating water in the experiments
varied between 0.08 and 10 m3 according to the size of
the flume, and the depths of the sediment beds varied
between 8 and 40 cm. The porosity of the sand beds was
between 0.325 and 0.38, and the wavelength of the bed
forms between 19 and 50 cm. The most relevant experimental
conditions are given in Table 1. The experiments conducted
by Packman were shallow bed experiments, while all of the
others had deep beds. Deep beds are those for which tanh(db*)
1, while for shallow beds tanh(db*) is sensibly smaller than
1. A considerable amount of additional detail on the exper-
imental conditions can be found in the original citations.
[18] Once an experiment started, the flow of water
above the sediments caused the transfer of tracer into
the bed so that the tracer concentration in the stream
water was observed to decrease over time. Selected

3. Description of Experimental Data Sets

[16] Laboratory experiments on stream-subsurface ex-
change of conservative solutes will be used to test
the TSM. A variety of exchange experiments have been
conducted in laboratory flumes, which provide a well-
defined stream flow over an apparatus designed to mimic
a small stream. Flumes provide a well-defined flow over a
sediment bed, and allow for the formation of natural bed
topography due to the interaction of the open-channel flow
with the bed sediments. Criteria for selecting experiments
for this evaluation of the TSM were the use of a consistent
experimental method and the desire to cover a relatively
wide range of experimental conditions. The following data
sets will be used to test the TSM: (1) that of Packman et Figure 1. Representative stream-subsurface exchange data
al. [2000b] was selected due to use of shallow streambeds, from laboratory experiments. The in-stream concentration
(2) that of Marion et al. [2002] was selected due to use of a decreases over time due to exchange with the porous
large experimental system, (3) that of Eylers [1994] (sum- streambed.
 ZARAMELLA ET AL.: HYPORHEIC EXCHANGE WITH SEDIMENT BEDS
experimental results are shown in Figure 1. The variability
in the exchange curves is due to the influence of the bed
form geometry, flow conditions, and volumes of recircu-
lating water and bed sediments, which differed in each
experiment. Higher stream velocity and bed form height
cause greater pumping exchange flux. In addition, the
volume of recirculating water controls the response of the
in-stream concentration to the exchange flux. For exam-
ple, the volume of recirculating water was very high in
Marion’s experiments, so these experiments showed the least
decrease in concentration. The depth of the bed also plays an
important role in determining the shape of the concentration
vs. time curve. When the bed is shallow, as in Packman’s
experiments, all pore water can become well-mixed with the
stream before the end of the experiment. This behavior can be
seen when the curve of concentration vs. time becomes
horizontal, indicating that a final steady value of concentra-
tion was reached. A mass balance indicates the final dilution
value:
1 observed solute breakthrough curves in natural streams.
Cf * ¼ : ð12Þ
qdb
þ1
d0
Recall that db is the average depth of the sediments and d0 the
effective depth of recirculating water above the sediments.
On the contrary, when the bed is deep, experimental results
show that the deepest regions of the bed are reached by the
tracer only after a long time.
[19] We should emphasize here that the advective
pumping model did a good job of predicting all of the
experimental results presented here, with model inputs
obtained from independent measurements. This demon-
strates that bed form-induced advective pumping was the
dominant hyporheic exchange process in all of these
experiments. Further, it is well-established that recirculat-
ing flumes adequately reproduce hydrodynamic interac-
tions between natural streams and bed sediments. This has
been clearly demonstrated, for example, by extensive
studies of bed sediment transport [Vanoni, 1975] and in-
stream solute transport [Fischer et al., 1979]. Thus we
believe that the application of the TSM to these experi-
mental data sets provides a general evaluation of its
ability to represent hyporheic exchange due to advective
pumping induced by bed forms. Other evidence suggests
that the pumping process will often be important in nature
[Wörman et al., 2002], and so any generally applicable
hyporheic exchange model should be able to represent it
well.
4. Results
4.1. TSM Analysis of Deep Beds
[20] Direct application of the TSM to an experimental
data set is shown in Figure 2, presented as the depth of
solute penetration into the subsurface, m*(t*), which
increases over time. The transient storage exchange rate
and storage zone depth have been evaluated by fitting the
model to the experimental data using the method presented
in section 2.3. The best fit values of the exchange rate and
the storage zone depth were found by applying equation 11
for two times of observation, T* = 15.96 and T* = 29.27.
This curve-fitting approach is essentially equivalent to that
HWC 4-5
Figure 2. Fitting of the TSM to an experimental data set
obtained with a deep streambed. The TSM cannot adequately
reproduce the entire exchange curve with constant values of
a and d.
used to derive best fit TSM exchange parameters from
[21] No unique set of TSM parameters could be found to fit
the entire exchange curve in Figure 2. If all of the experi-
mental results are fit for the complete duration of the
experiment, T* = 29.27, then the model underpredicts the
early exchange. Alternatively, the initial exchange up to T* =
15.96 can be fit with the model, but this results in a great
underprediction of the results at later times. The model would
provide even less ability to represent the results of experi-
ments of longer duration. Indeed, the TSM assumes a
constant asymptotic value of the concentration in the bed,
while the pumping model predicts that mass transfer with a
deep bed should increase logarithmically. Similar behavior
was seen for all other experiments with deep sediment beds.
While such a comparison indicates that the TSM cannot
represent the entire exchange curve with a unique set of
parameters (a, d), it does not indicate the source of the
discrepancy. This is particularly difficult to assess since the
main source of the error could occur in either TSM parameter.
[22] In order to assess the temporal variation in the best fit
TSM parameters, the TSM was applied to the experimental
data sets by fitting the model over the entire range of
experimental observations, as shown in Figures 3a and 3b.
The individual data points were obtained by fitting the TSM
directly to the experimental measurements at each time, i.e.,
by taking the time of measurement of each data point as the
fitting timescale T and thus finding the best fit values of
a*(T*) and d*(T*) to represent all experimental data up to
and including the point at the dimensionless time T*. Thus
each of the two comparisons showed previously in Figure 2
corresponds to one combination of a*(T*) and d*(T*) in
Figure 3. While Figure 2 provides a very intuitive compari-
son of the ability of the TSM to represent the observed
hyporheic exchange, Figure 3 demonstrates the variation in
the best fit TSM parameters over the duration of the
experiment. Figure 3 also compares the results of many
experiments. In Figure 3, the curves for the application of
the pumping model indicate how the dimensionless TSM
parameters a* and d* must vary to match the pumping
model for this range of experimental conditions. The
dimensionless solution of the pumping model can be seen
to reasonably represent all of the experimental data, which
was expected because of the success of the pumping model
HWC 4-6 ZARAMELLA ET AL.: HYPORHEIC EXCHANGE WITH SEDIMENT BEDS
Figure 3. Dimensionless presentation of optimal transient
storage parameters for all experimental data sets obtained
with deep streambeds. The data all fall along one
dimensionless model curve, which shows that a* generally
decreases over time and d* increases for T* greater than
around 4. Scatter around this curve is largely due to the
different stream depths in the individual experiments.
in predicting all of the results of the individual experiments
(as described in the primary citations for these experiments).
[23] Figure 4 clarifies how the use of scaled variables
collapses the experimental data onto a single dimensionless
curve. Figures 4c and 4d present the same data as in Figures 4a
and 4b, plotted using the scaled variables given in section 2.2.
The use of properly scaled dimensionless variables causes
the curves and data to collapse, except for a small difference
due to the different volumes of recirculating water and bed
sediment used in each experiment, which becomes important
for T* > 30. Figure 4 indicates that the TSM parameters are
dependent on system geometrical features like the stream
depth d* and the depth of the bed sediments d* b.
[24] These results indicate that only one theoretical curve
for a*(T*) and d*(T*) can be used to represent a wide range
of experimental data. This was shown in Figure 3, which
includes the application of the TSM to all of the experi-
mental results of Eylers and Marion with deep streambeds.
Note that a logarithmic timescale was used in Figure 3 to
show results from a wide range of experimental conditions
in one plot. One theoretical curve can be used to represent
all of these data because the normalized stream depth was
similar in all of these experiments. The results of this
analysis show that pumping exchange with deep beds
cannot be represented with constant values of the exchange
rate and storage zone depth, as assumed by the TSM.
Pumping exchange can only be represented by allowing
a*(T*) to decrease over time and allowing d*(T*) to
increase.
[25] This behavior reflects the fact that advective pump-
ing velocities are highest near the bed surface and that
ongoing exchange is dependent on solute penetration to
deeper parts of the bed. The pumping model predicts that
the upper part of the bed exchanges rapidly with the
stream, but advection through longer, slower flow paths
causes solutes to penetrate to deeper and deeper layers of
the bed over time. If the overlying stream water suddenly
attains a higher solute concentration (e.g., a solute tracer is
suddenly added to the stream or a solute pulse suddenly
passes over a particular section of streambed), then the
initial depletion of this concentration will be rapid due to
advection through fast, shallow flow paths. These shallow
flow paths will become well-mixed with the stream over a
relatively short time. Subsequent reduction of the in-stream
tracer concentration then requires mixing with tracer-free
water deeper in the bed, which is only accessible via slower
flow paths. As a result, the net rate of solute flux through
the stream-subsurface interface will decrease over time. If
the bed is very deep, then net exchange can occur for a
long period of time, but the exchange rate will decrease
considerably as the tracer front penetrates deeper and
deeper into the bed. This phenomenon clearly violates
TSM assumption of a flux governed by a concentration
difference between well-mixed reservoirs. In fact, the
ongoing pumping exchange can only be represented in
the TSM by allowing the storage zone depth to increase
over time and the exchange rate to decrease. These con-
cepts are illustrated in Figure 5.
4.2. TSM Analysis of Shallow Beds
[26] Consideration of Figure 5 suggests that the TSM
should be expected to perform better for shallower stream-
beds because the induced pore water velocities are more
uniform in this case. As discussed by Packman [1999],
pumping exchange with a shallow streambed is consider-
ably mediated by the presence of an impermeable boundary
relatively near the stream-subsurface interface. Water flux
through the stream-subsurface interface is reduced by a
modest amount, a factor of tanh(d*b), but the more impor-
tant effect is simply the restriction on subsurface flow paths
to this shallow layer. Exchange proceeds at a fairly constant
rate until the solute penetration front approaches the
impermeable boundary, at which point there is no addi-
tional pore water available for further dilution. If exchange
were restricted just to the part of the streambed that is
flushed relatively rapidly, then the TSM could conceivably
provide a good approximation of the pumping process. In
other words, the assumptions of the TSM are more rea-
sonable for the shallow bed case than for the deep bed
case, which indicates that the TSM may be able to
adequately represent advective pumping exchange with
shallow streambeds.
[27] The TSM will first be fit directly to the pumping
model in order to see if the TSM can adequately simulate
pumping exchange with shallow streambeds. Figure 6
presents the values of the transient storage exchange rate,
a*, and the storage zone depth, d*, required to fit the TSM
to the pumping model for different fitting times, T*. Curves
 ZARAMELLA ET AL.: HYPORHEIC EXCHANGE WITH SEDIMENT BEDS HWC 4-7

Figure 4. Application of the TSM to representative data sets obtained with deep streambeds. Adequate
fitting of the experimental data requires a to decrease over time and d to increase. Dimensionless TSM
parameters collapse the experimental data and model curves, except for a small variation due to the
stream depth.

of a*(T*) and d*(T*) are shown for several values of the bed
sediment depth, d*b, and stream depth, d*. These results
indicate that both the exchange rate and the storage zone
thickness are highly influenced by the depth of the sedi-
ments. However, the exchange parameters rapidly attain
constant values when the hyporheic zone is constrained by
the presence of an impermeable boundary. This occurs for
small values of d*b, as indicated by the curve for d*b = 1 in
Figure 6. The stream depth, d*, does not have as large an
effect as d*b on the applicability of the TSM, but it does have a
significant effect on the transient storage exchange rate in the
deep bed case.
[28] In interpreting field experiments, the transient Figure 5. TSM idealization of the advective pumping
storage zone area (As) obtained from TSM analysis of in- exchange process. The top panel shows observations of dye
stream solute transport is sometimes assumed to be equiv- exchange due to pumping from Elliott and Brooks [1997b].
alent to the physical extent of the hyporheic zone, but it is Each line below the bed surface is a dye penetration front,
important to note that this is in fact an assumption. Figure 6 recorded sequentially over a total period of 100 hours.
indicates that it would be difficult to find a relationship to When the TSM is applied to analyze the accumulated
link physical parameters such as the sediment depth to exchange up to a certain time, T, the actual exchange is
TSM exchange parameters because the TSM parameters idealized to an equivalent penetration, d(T ), and average
will often vary with time. For example, if a stream is exchange rate, a(T ). Because the induced pore water
underlain by loose and deep alluvium, then the actual velocities decrease with depth in the bed, the equivalent
hyporheic zone could be very large but a solute injection TSM exchange rate a(T ) decreases over time.
HWC 4-8 ZARAMELLA ET AL.: HYPORHEIC EXCHANGE WITH SEDIMENT BEDS
Figure 6. Simulations showing the change in TSM
parameters a* and d* required to fit the TSM to the
advective pumping model over different times of compar-
ison, T*, for different stream depths d* and bed depths d*b.
The assumption of constant TSM parameters only applies
for shallow beds d*b ffi 1.
experiment would give an estimate of As based on a finite
observation period equivalent to some particular T* in
Figure 6. Thus the extent of the hyporheic zone determined
from application of the TSM would not have physical
meaning, but would instead depend on either the duration
of monitoring or the time at which the tracer signal in the
stream became so low that it would be indistinguishable
from background values.
[29] For the case of a shallow bed, we can attempt to
predict the values of a* and d* by combining knowledge of
the system geometry with the theory presented previously.
Theoretically, d* should be infinite during the initial phase
of tracer penetration into the bed [Marion et al., 2003]. This
behavior can be seen in Figure 6 for T* ! 0. However,
shallow beds should become well-mixed relatively quickly,
and so it should be an acceptable approximation to equate
d* to the bed depth for all times. In addition, the shallow
bed restricts advective flow paths to yield a sharply-defined
spectrum of exchange residence times [Wörman et al.,
2002], which indicates that the TSM exchange rate should
also be approximately constant for all times. The appropri-
ate exchange rate can be found by linking the TSM to the
pumping model at T* = 0. The accumulated mass m*(t*)
can be found from the explicit expression of the penetrated
mass derived from the analytical solution of equation
8 coupled with equation 9 [Marion et al., 2003]:
   
qd* a*
1  exp  þ1 t*
d* d*
m*ðt*Þ ¼ 2pd* ; ð13Þ
qd*
þ1
d*
For small t*, this becomes:
m*ðt*ÞTSM ffi 2pa*t* ð14Þ
Following Packman [1999], the initial rate of pumping
exchange is given by:
m*ðt*Þ ffi 2t* tanhðdb*Þ: ð15Þ
The value of a*(0) is then found by relating equations 14
and 15:
tanhðdb*Þ
a*ð0Þ ffi : ð16Þ
p
Note that the initial value of a* as given by equation 16
does not depend on the normalized stream depth, d*.
[30] With these assumptions, the theoretically derived
TSM parameters for pumping exchange with a shallow
bed are:
tanhðdb*Þ
a* ¼
p
ð17Þ
d* ¼ db*:
This derivation indicates that TSM exchange parameters
can be directly related to actual hyporheic exchange fluxes
and the system geometry when the hyporheic zone is
constrained by the presence of a shallow impermeable
layer. It should be noted that neither derived parameter in
equation 17 strictly applies throughout the entire mixing
process. Physically, d*b is not actually the depth of a well-
mixed storage zone but rather the ultimate depth of mixing,
and a* will increase slightly over time even for shallow
beds. Nonetheless, equation 17 represents a useful approx-
imation that can be used to predict the expected exchange
using the TSM. This approach will now be evaluated by
comparing the TSM prediction with experimental data.
[31] Figure 7 shows the application of the TSM to flume
experiments conducted with shallow sediment beds. In this
case, the exchange is dependent on the bed depth, d*b, as well
as the stream depth, d*. The model curves shown in Figure 7
were obtained by fitting the TSM to the pumping model
using the values of d* and d*b given in Table 1. For the
shallowest beds, d*b < 2, the exchange rate, a*, is almost
constant and close to the predicted value. The TSM storage
zone depth, d*, has high values near T* = 0 due to the fact
that there is very little tracer return to the stream in the initial
phase of the experiment. The values of d* decrease to
become nearly constant after the initial exchange period.
These results indicate that the TSM should be able to provide
a good representation of pumping for the shallow bed case
 ZARAMELLA ET AL.: HYPORHEIC EXCHANGE WITH SEDIMENT BEDS
Figure 7. Application of the TSM to data sets obtained
with shallow streambeds. These experimental results can be
represented well with constant TSM parameters. Run 15
was the deepest of Packman’s experiments and begins to
show some variation in a* and d*.
because the assumption of constant values of a* and d* is a
good approximation of the observed pumping behavior.
[32] The application of the TSM to Packman’s Run 15
begins to show some temporal variability in model param-
eters, though the TSM still performs adequately for this
case. Run 15 had the deepest bed of all of Packman’s
experiments, d*b = 2.65. The results of Packman and
MacKay, presented in Figure 4, clearly show that noncon-
stant TSM parameters occur for db* = 3.80. Taken together,
these results suggest that the TSM cannot represent the
HWC 4-9
pumping velocity due to the shallow bed. Use of these
properly scaled variables collapses the shallow-bed ex-
change data and simplifies the model calculation. The
dimensionless exchange curves can be converted back to
dimensional predictions using the variable definitions pre-
sented in section 2.2. Clearly, the TSM approximates the
pumping model well when the streambed is shallow, and
both models reproduce the observed solute exchange.
[34] It should be noted that the TSM curves shown in
Figure 8 truly represent predictions of hyporheic exchange.
The curves have not been fit to the data in any way, but are
instead based only on the physical parameters given in
equations 7 and 17. The TSM prediction was made possible
by combining fundamental knowledge of the pumping
process with scaling arguments and physical reasoning. To
the best of our knowledge, this is the first application of a
fundamentally derived prediction of exchange using the
TSM. The predictive model is only applicable to the case
of a shallow streambed, and would not apply for a less-
constrained hyporheic zone.
5. Discussion and Conclusions
[35] In this work, we compared the commonly used TSM
for hyporheic exchange with the fundamentally based
pumping model and the results of controlled laboratory
flume experiments. The goal of this work was to determine
if the TSM has a firm physical basis, or if it can at least be
directly related to one particular hydrodynamic exchange
process. To facilitate the comparison, we utilized a properly
scaled version of the TSM that relates dimensionless TSM
parameters to the geometric and hydraulic properties of the
stream. Dimensionless TSM parameters are expressed in
terms of the stream and bed topography, bed sediment
porosity and permeability, and the head difference that
drives pumping exchange. This scaling should be helpful
in applying the TSM to streams or rivers of different sizes.
[36] Matching the TSM to the pumping model indicated
that the initial advective mass transfer to the bed violates the
pumping process well when d*b  3, i.e., when the bed depth
is greater than around half the bed form wavelength.
[33] Since Figure 7 provides confidence that the TSM is
applicable to exchange with a shallow hyporheic zone,
equation 17 can be used to predict the appropriate values
of a* and d* to model these shallow-bed experiments.
Figure 8 shows the TSM prediction of exchange for all of
the shallow-bed experiments. Results are plotted in a
nondimensional space similar to the one suggested by
Packman [1999] for exchange with shallow beds. The
exchange parameter m*f = m/db is the fraction of the Figure 8. Prediction of exchange with shallow beds using
available pore water that has undergone exchange with the TSM. Model parameters a* and d* were predicted
the stream, which is the appropriate representation of theoretically using equation 17 and the experimental
mixing with a finite streambed. The exchange timescale conditions listed in Table 1. The dimensionless theoretical
t*f = t* tanh(d*b)/d*b is based on the bed depth instead of the prediction represents the experimental data well without
bed form wave number and corrected for the reduction in curve fitting.
HWC 4 - 10 ZARAMELLA ET AL.: HYPORHEIC EXCHANGE WITH SEDIMENT BEDS
TSM assumption of a well-mixed storage zone. The result-
ing exchange can only be modeled with the TSM by
assumption of an infinite storage zone. This is not a severe
restriction for most applications, as the early advective
exchange can often be disregarded as an initial transient.
This is more likely to be a significant limitation for
application of the TSM to reactive transport, particularly
in the case where solutes or colloids are delivered to the
streambed by advective pumping and then are rapidly
consumed or trapped in the bed.
[37] After the initial transient, constant values of TSM
exchange parameters were found to provide an adequate
approximation for the pumping exchange with a shallow
bed, but not for pumping exchange with a deep bed. This
behavior is related to the nature of advective subsurface
mixing: pumping mass transfer is characterized by rapid
flushing of the upper layers of the bed but slower transport
in deeper layers of the bed. TSM assumptions are only
reasonable for exchange over some finite depth, and if the
bed is deep enough then the later exchange will occur over
a greater depth and with a slower effective exchange rate.
Application of the TSM to experimental data indicated that
the TSM could not adequately reproduce the observed
mass transfer to a deep bed with constant values of the
exchange parameters a* and d*. The observed exchange
can only be represented if the storage zone depth d*
increases over time and the exchange coefficient a*
decreases. These observations were found consistently for
a wide range of experimental stream velocities and geo-
metric conditions.
[38] Experimental observations of exchanges with shal-
low beds indicated that constant values of a* and d* could
be assumed as long as the bed depth was less than d*b 3.
To predict exchange in this case, we used the pumping
model to derive theoretical values for TSM parameters,
a* = tanh(d*b)/p and d* = d*b. The exchange rate, a*,
was obtained from knowledge of the advective pumping
exchange process, while the extent of the hyporheic zone, d*,
was selected based on the geometry of the streambed. These
predictions of a* and d* are useful approximations and, with
them, the TSM can be used to make fundamentally based
predictions of hyporheic exchange.
[39] Independent prediction of exchange using these
derived TSM parameter values was able to reproduce the
results of experiments conducted with shallow sediment
beds. The use of properly scaled exchange variables clearly
demonstrated that the TSM could provide an adequate
representation of pumping exchange for the shallow-bed
case under a variety of flow and bed conditions. While these
derived exchange parameters worked well for the laboratory
system with a solid channel bottom, care would have to be
exercised in applying these predictions to real streambeds,
which could be constrained by a subsurface layer with small
but finite permeability that could still admit solute transport
over long timescales.
[40] Our results demonstrate the need for improved
consideration of individual exchange processes. This work
shows that the TSM cannot adequately represent all ad-
vective exchange processes, and thus that it may not
provide a good model for hyporheic exchange in many
real streams. When advective pumping is a significant
exchange process, the best fit TSM parameters will be
dependent on the timescale of the pulse and/or on the
duration of observations. Similar conclusions were reached
by Wörman et al. [2002] based on a comparison of the
hyporheic residence time distributions implicit in the TSM
and the pumping model and measurements of tritium
retention in streambed sediments. These conclusions are
also consistent with more general field observations of
hyporheic exchange [Harvey et al., 1996; Harvey and
Wagner, 2000].
[41] Within the context of the interpretation of stream
tracer data, the typical difficulties in relating TSM param-
eters to physical quantities are normally thought to be data
limitations and natural system heterogeneity. Harvey and
Wagner [2000] and Choi et al. [2000] both noted that
natural variability, as expressed in multiple solute storage
zones, can often be represented adequately with the TSM.
However, they found that this representation would reflect
only some exchange processes, normally the dominant
process for bulk solute retention at the timescale of the
experimental observation. Our work goes beyond these
others by demonstrating that these limitations do not result
only from data-related uncertainty or the heterogeneity of
the natural system. We found that the TSM required
nonconstant parameters to represent advective solute ex-
change with deep, homogenous sand beds because the TSM
does not provide a good representation of the functionality
of the advective exchange process. This represents a fun-
damental limitation on the TSM’s ability to characterize
hyporheic fluxes and the physical extent of the hyporheic
zone.
[42] Clearly, TSM parameters derived from curve fitting
the results of solute-injection experiments should be inter-
preted very carefully. The TSM certainly provides a useful,
simple representation of bulk hyporheic mixing. However,
in many cases it may not really represent the physics of the
exchange processes, and instead the transient storage for-
mulation may simply serve as a curve-fitting scheme that
yields exchange parameters unrelated to any meaningful
physical quantities. Because flow path and exchange rate
information are critical to the evaluation of reactive trans-
port processes such as hyporheic nutrient uptake, the TSM
and other lumped-parameter, semiempirical exchange mod-
els may not be appropriate for these types of applications.
Our work emphasizes the need to approach the reactive
transport problem more from the perspective of subsurface
pore water fluxes rather than from the perspective of
simulating in-stream solute breakthrough curves. This sup-
ports the conclusion of Harvey and Wagner [2000] that the
stream tracer approach will often need to be combined with
subsurface measurements.
[43] Detailed investigations in streams can provide addi-
tional insight into the general applicability of the TSM.
Process-based investigations can also be used to relate the
TSM to individual exchange processes and thus to lend
additional physical meaning to TSM parameters. In this
work, we presented a method to calculate TSM parameters
for pumping exchange based on physical stream parameters.
We believe that this is the first such predictive capability
developed for the TSM. However, we also found that the
predictive relationship only applies for sharply-constrained
hyporheic zones, and that the TSM does not work well for
unconstrained hyporheic zones. Additional studies will
 ZARAMELLA ET AL.: HYPORHEIC EXCHANGE WITH SEDIMENT BEDS HWC 4 - 11

provide further information on the conditions for which the manuscript. This material is based upon work supported by the National
Science Foundation under grant BES-0196368. The participation of Andrea
TSM provides a reasonable approximation of the actual Marion was funded by the Italian National Research Council (CNR),
exchange mechanics. Such investigations can potentially National Group on Chemical-Industrial and Environmental Hazards.
yield additional predictive capability for the analysis of
hyporheic exchange using the TSM framework. Alterna- References
tively, a more flexible model framework, such as the ASP Bencala, K. E., and R. A. Walters, Simulation of solute transport in a
model developed by Wörman et al. [2002], could be used to mountain pool-and-riffle stream: A transient storage model, Water Re-
explicitly represent an appropriate suite of individual ex- sour. Res., 19, 718 – 724, 1983.
Brunke, M., and T. Gonser, The ecological significance of exchange pro-
change processes. cesses between rivers and groundwater, Freshwater Biol., 37, 1 – 33,
1997.
Castro, N. M., and G. M. Hornberger, Surface-subsurface interactions in an
Notation alluviated mountain stream channel, Water Resour. Res., 27(7), 1613 –
A 1621, 1991.
cross-sectional area of the stream. Choi, J., J. W. Harvey, and M. H. Conklin, Characterizing multiple time-
As cross-sectional area of the storage zone. scales and storage zone interaction that affect solute fate and transport in
C0 initial tracer concentration in the stream. drainage basins, Water Resour. Res., 36, 1511 – 1518, 2000.
C* dimensionless tracer concentration, equal to Cw/C0. Elliott, A. H., and N. H. Brooks, Transfer of nonsorbing solutes to a
streambed with bed forms: Theory, Water Resour. Res., 33, 123 – 136,
Cb concentration of tracer in the storage zone. 1997a.
C*f dimensionless final dilution concentration. Elliott, A. H., and N. H. Brooks, Transfer of nonsorbing solutes to a
Cw concentration of tracer in the stream. streambed with bed forms: Laboratory experiments, Water Resour.
d stream depth. Res., 33, 137 – 151, 1997b.
d* dimensionless water depth above sediments, equal to Eylers, H., Transport of adsorbing metal ions between stream water and
sediment bed in a laboratory flume, Ph.D. thesis, Calif. Inst. of Technol.,
kd0. Pasadena, Calif., 1994.
d0 effective water depth above sediments. Eylers, H., N. H. Brooks, and J. J. Morgan, Transport of adsorbing metals
db pumping model bed depth. from stream water to a stationary sand bed in a laboratory flume, Mar.
d*b dimensionless pumping model bed depth, equal to Freshwater Res., 46, 209 – 214, 1995.
Fischer, H. B., E. J. List, R. C. Y. Koh, J. Imberger, and N. H. Brooks,
kdb. Mixing in Inland and Coastal Waters, Academic, San Diego, Calif.,
hm half amplitude of the sinusoidal distribution of 1979.
pressure on the bed surface. Hall, R. O., Jr., E. S. Bernhardt, and G. E. Likens, Relating nutrient uptake
k bed form wave number, equal to 2p/l. with transient storage in forested mountain streams, Limnol. Oceanogr.,
K hydraulic conductivity. 47(1), 255 – 265, 2002.
Harvey, J. W., and K. E. Bencala, The effect of streambed topography on
m equivalent penetration depth (units of depth), equal to surface-subsurface water exchange in mountain catchments, Water Re-
total exchanged mass per unit bed area divided by the sour. Res., 29, 89 – 98, 1993.
reference concentration in the stream, C0. Harvey, J. W., and B. J. Wagner, Quantifying hydrologic interactions be-
m* dimensionless equivalent penetration depth, equal to tween streams and their subsurface hyporheic zones, in Streams and
Groundwaters, edited by J. B. Jones and P. J. Mulholland, pp. 3 – 44,
2pkm/q. Academic, San Diego, Calif., 2000.

R flux weighted, spatially averaged residence time Harvey, J. W., B. J. Wagner, and K. E. Bencala, Evaluating the reliability of
function. the stream tracer approach to characterize stream-subsurface water ex-
S mean square deviation. change, Water Resour. Res., 32, 2441 – 2451, 1996.
t time. Hynes, H. B. N., Groundwater and stream ecology, Hydrobiologia, 100,
93 – 99, 1983.
t* dimensionless time, equal to k2Khmt/q. Jones, J. B., and P. J. Mulholland (Eds.), Streams and Ground Waters,
T* dimensionless fitting timescale. Academic, San Diego, Calif., 2000.
u horizontal Darcy pumping velocity. Lees, M. J., L. A. Camacho, and S. Chapra, On the relationship of transient-
u* dimensionless horizontal Darcy pumping velocity, storage and aggregated dead zone models of longitudinal solute transport
in streams, Water Resour. Res., 36, 213 – 224, 2000.
equal to u/(Kkhm). Marion, A., M. Bellinello, I. Guymer, and A. I. Packman, Effect of bed
v vertical Darcy pumping velocity. form geometry on the penetration of passive solutes into a stream bed,
v* dimensionless vertical Darcy pumping velocity, equal Water Resour. Res., 38(10), 1209, doi:10.1029/2001WR000264, 2002.
to v/(Kkhm). Marion, A., M. Zaramella, and A. I. Packman, Parameter estimation of the
transient storage model for stream-subsurface exchange, J. Environ.
x horizontal coordinate. Eng., 129(5), 456 – 463, doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9372 (2003)129:5
x* dimensionless longitudinal coordinate, equal to kx. (456), 2003.
y vertical coordinate. Medina, M. A., R. L. Doneker, N. Grosso, D. M. Johns, W. Lung, M. F. N.
y* dimensionless vertical coordinate, equal to ky. Mohsen, A. I. Packman, and P. J. Roberts, Surface water-ground water
a mass transfer coefficient. interactions and modeling applications, in Environmental Modeling and
Management: Theory, Practice and Future Directions, edited by C. C.
a* dimensionless exchange rate, equal to aqH/(kKhm). Chien et al., chap. 1, pp. 1 – 62, DuPont Co., Wilmington, Del., 2002.
d storage zone depth. O’Connor, D. J., Models of sorptive toxic substances in freshwater systems.

disagreement between pumping model and TSM. III: Streams and rivers, J. Environ. Eng., 114(3), 552 – 574, 1988.
d* dimensionless storage zone depth, equal to kd. Packman, A. I., Scaling bedform-driven exchange between a stream and a
finite stream bed, paper presented at the XXVIII IAHR Congress, Int.
l bed form wavelength. Assoc. for Hydraul. Res., Graz, Austria, Aug. 1999.
q porosity of bed sediment. Packman, A. I., and K. E. Bencala, Modeling surface-subsurface hydrolo-
gical interactions, in Streams and Ground Waters, edited by J. B. Jones
[44] Acknowledgments. The authors would like to thank Ken and P. J. Mulholland, pp. 45 – 80, Academic, San Diego, Calif., 2000.
Bencala and Jud Harvey for sharing their insight and providing helpful Packman, A. I., and N. H. Brooks, Hyporheic exchange of solutes and
suggestions which contributed greatly to this work. We also appreciate the colloids with moving bedforms, Water Resour. Res., 37(10), 2591 –
comments of three anonymous reviewers, which helped us to improve the 2605, 2001.
HWC 4 - 12 ZARAMELLA ET AL.: HYPORHEIC EXCHANGE WITH SEDIMENT BEDS
Packman, A. I., and J. S. MacKay, Interplay of stream-subsurface exchange,
clay particle deposition, and streambed evolution, Water Resour. Res.,
39(4), 1097, doi:10.1029/2002WR001432, 2003.
Packman, A. I., N. H. Brooks, and J. J. Morgan, A physicochemical model
for colloid exchange between a stream and a sand streambed with bed
forms, Water Resour. Res., 36, 2351 – 2361, 2000a.
Packman, A. I., N. H. Brooks, and J. J. Morgan, Kaolinite exchange
between a stream and stream bed: Laboratory experiments and evalua-
tion of a colloid transport model, Water Resour. Res., 36, 2363 – 2372,
2000b.
Runkel, R. L., One-dimensional transport with inflow and storage (OTIS)—
A solute transport model for streams and rivers, U.S. Geol. Surv. Water
Resour. Invest. Rep., 98-4018, 1998.
Savant, S. A., D. D. Reible, and L. J. Thibodeax, Convective transport
within stable river sediments, Water Resour. Res., 23(9), 1763 – 1768,
1987.
Schnoor, J. L., C. Sato, D. McKechnie, and D. Sahoo, Processes, coeffi-
cients, and models for simulating toxic organics and heavy metals in
surface waters, Rep. EPA-600/3-87-015, U.S. Environ. Prot. Agency,
Washington, D. C., 1987.
Thibodeax, L. J., and J. D. Boyle, Bedform-generated convective transport
in bottom sediment, Nature, 325(22), 341 – 343, 1987.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), Proceedings of the
Ground-Water/Surface-Water Interactions Workshop, Rep. EPA 542-R-
00-007, Washington, D. C., 2000.
Vanoni, V. A., (Ed.), Sedimentation Engineering, Manuals Rep. Eng.
Pract., vol. 54, Am. Soc. of Civ. Eng., Reston, Va., 1975.
View publication stats
Wagner, B. J., and J. W. Harvey, Experimental design for estimating para-
meters of rate-limited mass-transfer: Analysis of stream tracer studies,
Water Resour. Res., 33, 1731 – 1741, 1997.
Winter, T. C., J. W. Harvey, O. H. Franke, and W. M. Alley, Ground water
and surface water: A single resource, U.S. Geol. Surv. Circ., 1139, 1998.
Wörman, A., J. Forsman, and H. Johansson, Modelling retention of sorbing
solutes in streams based on a tracer experiment using 51Cr, J. Environ.
Eng., 124(2), 122 – 130, 1998.
Wörman, A., A. I. Packman, H. Johansson, and K. Jonsson, Effect of flow-
induced exchange in hyporheic zones on longitudinal transport of solutes
in streams and rivers, Water Resour. Res., 38(1), 1001, doi:10.1029/
2001WR000769, 2002.
Young, P. C., and S. G. Wallis, The aggregated dead zone (ADZ) model for
dispersion in rivers, paper presented at International Conference on Water
Quality Modeling in the Inland Natural Environment, Br. Hydrol. Res.
Assoc., Bournemouth, UK, 10 – 13 June 1986.
Zaramella, M., Valutazione teorico sperimentale dei parametri di riferimento
dei prinicipali modelli di contaminazione iporeica, Laurea thesis, Univ. di
Padova, Padua, Italy, 2000.


A. Marion and M. Zaramella, Department of Hydraulic, Maritime, and
Geotechnical Engineering, University of Padua, via Loredan 20, 35100
Padova, Italy.
A. I. Packman, Department of Civil Engineering, Northwestern Univer-
sity, 2145 Sheridan Road, Evanston, IL 60208-3109, USA. (a-packman@
northwestern.edu)