Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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
Lan
dfi
ll
(m)
(m )
3-w
ell
sys
tem
4-w
ell
sys
tem
5-w
ell s
ys
tem
6-w
ell s
ys
tem
8-w
ell s
yste
m
12-w
ell
sy
stem
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 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220 230
Distance from the contaminant source (m)
(a)
De
tec
tio
n p
rob
ab
ilit
y ( P
d)
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 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220 230
Distance from the contaminant source (m)
(b)
De
tec
tio
n p
rob
ab
ilit
y ( P
d)
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 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220 230
distance from the contaminant source (m)
(a)
Ave
rag
e c
on
tam
inat
ed a
rea
(Aav
) x 1
04 ( m
2)
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 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220 230
distance from the contaminant source (m)
(b)
Ave
rag
e co
nta
min
ated
are
a ( A
av) x
104
( 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
ecti
on
pro
bab
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
rag
e co
nta
min
ated
are
a ( A
av) x
10
4 ( m
2 ) 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
ecti
on
pro
bab
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
rag
e co
nta
min
ated
are
a (
Aav
)x1
04 (m
2 )
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 13
Number of wells in the monitoring system
(a)
Det
ecti
on
pro
bab
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 13
Number of wells in the monitoring system
(b)
Det
ecti
on
pro
bab
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 13
Number of wells in the monitoring system
(a)
Det
ecti
on
pro
bab
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 13
Number of wells in the monitoring system
(b)
Det
ecti
on
pro
bab
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 13
Number of wells in the monitoring system
(a)
Det
ecti
on
pro
bab
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 13
Number of wells in the monitoring system
(b)
Det
ecti
on
pro
bab
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 13
Number of wells in the monitoring system
(a)
Ave
rag
e co
nta
min
ated
are
a ( A
av) x
104 ( m
2 )
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 13
Number of wells in the monitoring system
(b)
Ave
rag
e co
nta
min
ated
are
a ( A
av) x
104 ( m
2 )
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 13
Number of wells in the monitoring system
(a)
Ave
rag
e co
nta
min
ated
are
a ( A
av) x
104 ( m
2 )
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 13
Number of wells in the monitoring system
(b)
Av
era
ge
co
nta
min
ate
d a
rea
( Aav
) x 1
04 ( m
2)
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)
Exp
ecte
d t
ota
l co
st (C
T) x
105 (
do
llars
)
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)
Exp
ecte
d t
ota
l co
st ( C
T) x
105 (
do
llars
) conventional monitoring approach
proposed monitoring approach
![Review Bioconversion of Egypt's Agricultural Wastes into ... of Egypts.pdf · 2446 Elfeki M., et. al. organic compost [5], and AD (biogas) technology, which is a promising treatment](https://img.pdfslide.us/doc/110x75/5e07f34f0c23084255371d73/review-bioconversion-of-egypts-agricultural-wastes-into-of-2446-elfeki-m.jpg)
