new approach for groundwater detection monitoring at landfills
TRANSCRIPT
NEW APPROACH FOR GROUNDWATER DETECTION
MONITORING AT LINED LANDFILLS
N. Buket YENiGüL1,a, Amro M.M. ELFEKI 2,c and Cees van den AKKER 1,b
1 Faculty of Civil Engineering and Geosciences, Water Resources Section, TU Delft, P.O. Box 5048, 2600 GA Delft, The Netherlands. Fax:+31-15-2785915
a Corresponding author. e- mail address: [email protected] b e- mail address: [email protected]
2Department of Hydrology and Water Resources Management, Faculty of Meteorology, Environment and Arid Land Agriculture, King Abdulaziz
University, P.O. Box 80208, Jeddah 21589, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. e-mail address: [email protected]
c On leave from Irrigation and Hydraulics Dept., Faculty of Engneering, Mansoura University, Mansoura, Egypt.
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500-400
-350
-300
-250
-200
-150
-100
-50
0
100
50
0
150
200
250
300
350
400
Flow
Land
fill
(m)
(m)
3-w
ell s
yste
m4-
wel
l sys
tem
5-w
ell s
yste
m6-
wel
l sys
tem
8-w
ell s
yste
m
12-w
ell s
yste
m
System reliability as a function of distance from the source for selected monitoring systems for conventional monitoring
approach: (a) homogenous medium, and (b) heterogeneous medium.
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220 230Distance from the contaminant source (m)
(a)
Det
ectio
n pr
obab
ility
( Pd
)
3-well system6-well system12-well system
T = 0.01 m T = 0.03 m
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220 230Distance from the contaminant source (m)
(b)
Det
ectio
n pr
obab
ility
( Pd
)
3-well system6-well system12-well system
T = 0.01 m T = 0.03 m
Average contaminated area as a function of distance from the source for selected monitoring systems for conventional
monitoring approach:
(a) homogenous medium and (b) heterogeneous medium.
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220 230distance from the contaminant source (m)
(a)
Ave
rage
con
tam
inat
ed a
rea (
A av
) x 1
04 ( m2 )
3-well system12-well system
T = 0.01 m T = 0.03 m
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220 230distance from the contaminant source (m)
(b)
Ave
rage
con
tam
inat
ed a
rea
( Aav
) x 1
04 ( m2 )
3-well system12-well system
T = 0.01 m T = 0.03 m
System reliability as a function of distance from the source for a 3-well monitoring system for the proposed monitoring
approach (pumping rate is 100 l/day).
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220 230Distance from the contaminant source (m)
Det
ectio
n pr
obab
ility
( Pd
)
homogenous case,
homogenous case,
heterogeneous case,
heterogeneous case,
T=0.01 m
T=0.03 m
T=0.01 m
T=0.03 m
Average contaminated area as a function of distance from the source for a 3-well monitoring system for the proposed
monitoring approach (pumping rate is 100 l/day).
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220 230Distance from the contaminant source (m)
Ave
rage
con
tam
inat
ed a
rea
( Aav
) x 1
04 ( m2 ) homogenous case,
homogenous case,
heterogeneous case,
heterogeneous case,
T=0.01 m
T=0.03 m
T=0.01 m
T=0.03 m
Influence of the pumping rate on (a) detection probability of a 3-well system
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
Homogenous mediumaT=0.01 m
Homogenous mediumaT=0.03 m
Heterogeneous mediumaT=0.01 m
Heterogeneous mediumaT=0.03 m
(a)
Det
ectio
n pr
obab
ility
( P
d )
estimated minimum estimated maximumestimated optimal
100 l/day50 l/daypumping rate =
Influence of the pumping rate on (b) average contaminated area.
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
Homogenous mediumaT=0.01 m
Homogenous mediumaT=0.03 m
Heterogeneous mediumaT=0.01 m
Heterogeneous mediumaT=0.03 m
(b)
Ave
rage
con
tam
inat
ed a
rea
( A a
v ) x
104
(m2 )
estimated minimum estimated maximum
100 l/day50 l/daypumping rate =
Comparison of the conventional and the proposed monitoring approaches (pumping rate = 100 l/day) in terms
of reliability “in heterogeneous medium”: (a) transverse dispersivity, T = 0.01 m, and
(b) transverse dispersivity, T = 0.03 m.
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13Number of wells in the monitoring system
(a)
Det
ectio
n pr
obab
ility
(Pd
)
estimated minimum estimated maximumestimated optimal
proposed monitoring approach
conventional monitoring approach
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13Number of wells in the monitoring system
(b)
Det
ectio
n pr
obab
ility
( Pd
)
estimated minimum estimated maximumestimated optimal
proposed monitoring approach
conventional monitoring approach
Comparison of the conventional and the proposed monitoring approaches (pumping rate = 100 l/day) in terms
of the average contaminated area “in homogenous medium”:
(a) transverse dispersivity, T = 0.01 m and (b) transverse dispersivity, T = 0.03 m.
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13Number of wells in the monitoring system
(a)
Det
ectio
n pr
obab
ility
( Pd
)
estimated minimum estimated maximumestimated optimal
proposed monitoring approach
conventional monitoring approach
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13Number of wells in the monitoring system
(b)
Det
ectio
n pr
obab
ility
( Pd
)
estimated minimum estimated maximumestimated optimal
proposed monitoring approach
conventional monitoring approach
Comparison of the conventional and the proposed monitoring approaches (pumping rate = 100 l/day) in terms
of the average contaminated area “in homogenous medium”: (a) transverse dispersivity, T = 0.01 m and (b)
transverse dispersivity, T = 0.03 m.
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13Number of wells in the monitoring system
(a)
Det
ectio
n pr
obab
ility
( Pd
)
estimated minimum estimated maximumestimated optimal
proposed monitoring approach
conventional monitoring approach
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13Number of wells in the monitoring system
(b)
Det
ectio
n pr
obab
ility
( Pd
)
estimated minimum estimated maximumestimated optimal
proposed monitoring approach
conventional monitoring approach
Comparison of the conventional and the proposed monitoring approaches (pumping rate = 100 l/day) in terms
of the average contaminated area “in heterogeneous medium”: (a) transverse dispersivity, T = 0.01 m and (b)
transverse dispersivity, T = 0.03 m.
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13Number of wells in the monitoring system
(a)
Ave
rage
con
tam
inat
ed a
rea
( Aav
) x 1
04 ( m2 )
estimated maximum estimated minimum
proposed monitoring approach
conventional monitoring approach
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13Number of wells in the monitoring system
(b)
Ave
rage
con
tam
inat
ed a
rea
( Aav
) x 1
04 (m2 )
estimated maximum estimated minimum
proposed monitoring approach
conventional monitoring approach
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13Number of wells in the monitoring system
(a)
Ave
rage
con
tam
inat
ed a
rea
( Aav
) x 1
04 ( m2 )
estimated maximum estimated minimum
proposed monitoring approach
conventional monitoring approach
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13Number of wells in the monitoring system
(b)
Ave
rage
con
tam
inat
ed a
rea
( Aav
) x 1
04 ( m2 )
estimated maximum estimated minimum
proposed monitoring approach
conventional monitoring approach
Expected cost as a function of number of wells in a monitoring system for transverse dispersivity, T = 0.03 m:
(a) homogenous medium and (b) heterogeneous medium.
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
3-wellmonitoring
system
4-wellmonitoring
system
5-wellmonitoring
system
6-wellmonitoring
system
8-wellmonitoring
system
12-wellmonitoring
system(a)
Expe
cted
tota
l cos
t (C
T) x
105 (d
olla
rs) conventional monitoring approach
proposed monitoring approach
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
3-wellmonitoring
system
4-wellmonitoring
system
5-wellmonitoring
system
6-wellmonitoring
system
8-wellmonitoring
system
12-wellmonitoring
system(b)
Expe
cted
tota
l cos
t (C
T) x
105 (d
olla
rs) conventional monitoring approach
proposed monitoring approach