4.7 Article

The effect of cutoff walls on saltwater intrusion and groundwater extraction in coastal aquifers

期刊

JOURNAL OF HYDROLOGY
卷 476, 期 -, 页码 370-383

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2012.11.007

关键词

Saltwater intrusion; Cutoff wall; Groundwater extraction; Numerical simulation; SUTRA; Analytical approximation

资金

  1. EU-project INTERREG IIIA Greece-Italy [13101034]
  2. Helmholtz-Zentrum fuer Umweltforschung GmbH - UFZ [UFZ-02/2099, RA-3205/09]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We use numerical simulations to study the effect of cutoff walls on saltwater intrusion and assess their protective effect on groundwater extractions near the coast. Results are presented in terms of dimensionless variables with ranges suitable for field applications. We find that, in the absence of groundwater extractions, the effectiveness of cutoff walls is determined by the wall depth, its distance from the coast, the velocity ratio, the intensity of mixing, the conductivity anisotropy and the relative conductivity of the wall. To assess the effectiveness of cutoff walls in practical applications, we present graphs and empirical equations. Also, we assess the protective effect of cutoff walls on groundwater extractions by means of drains and single wells. We do so by calculating the maximum safe extraction rate before and after the construction of a cutoff wall; i.e. the maximum rate of groundwater extraction for which the maximum salt concentration entering the drain or the well is below a certain threshold. We find that the protective effect of cutoff walls is stronger for single wells rather than drains and for cases when the extractions are located at relative small distances from the coast, relative large depths, and in aquifers with small velocity ratio, weak mixing and high anisotropy. To facilitate the design of safe extractions, we use numerical results to develop analytical approximations for the influence of cutoff walls. (C) 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据