4.7 Article

An evaluation of the influence of aquifer heterogeneity on permeable reactive barrier design

Journal

WATER RESOURCES RESEARCH
Volume 42, Issue 3, Pages -

Publisher

AMER GEOPHYSICAL UNION
DOI: 10.1029/2005WR004629

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

[1] The influence of heterogeneity in aquifer hydraulic conductivity ( K) on contaminant plume patterns and the required thickness and length of permeable reactive barriers (PRBs) used for in situ remediation is evaluated using stochastic modeling. The results provide a quantitative means for evaluating the effects of ( 1) the level of aquifer heterogeneity as reflected by the standard deviation of the logarithm of K, sigma(lnK), (2) the aquifer correlation structure anisotropy represented by the ratio of correlation lengths, lambda(x)/lambda(y), and ( 3) D-PRB representing the distance from the contaminant source zone to the PRB. In terms of PRB thickness, a probabilistic factor of safety related to uncertainty in influent groundwater seepage velocities (FS1,90) at the location of the PRB is quantified. In terms of PRB length, a probabilistic factor of safety related to uncertainty in the length of a PRB required to capture the contaminant plume, defined as the capture length ratio (CLR), is quantified. The mean and standard deviation of FS1,90 significantly increase as sigma(lnK) increases from 0.2 to 1.6, and slightly increase as lambda(x)/lambda(y) increases from 1.0 to 3.0 and D-PRB increases from 15 to 45 m. The values for the factor of safety for PRB thickness versus sigma(lnK) compare favorably with previously published values based on a different methodology. The mean and standard deviation of CLR increase with increasing sigma(lnK) and with increasing D-PRB, and decrease slightly with increasing lambda(x)/lambda(y). Finally, the ranges in CLR are correlated with strongly divergent and strongly convergent plume patterns.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available