216

Groundwater Hydrology: Engineering, Planning, and Management

y
Plume contour lines

Extraction well

Regional flow
x

Capture-zone

FIGURE 5.13  Superimposing the plume onto a capture-zone type curve for a single extrac-
tion well. (From Masters, G.M. and Ela, W.P., Introduction to Environmental Engineering
and Science, Prentice Hall Inc., Simon and Schuster, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 576 p., 2008.)

Pumping rates, Q, have a direct impact on the width of the capture zone, while the
product of the Darcy flow velocity, v, and the aquifer thickness, B, inversely affects
the width of this zone. Therefore, to capture the same area at higher regional flow
velocities, higher pumping rates are required. However, there are some limitations
for maximum pumping rates that restrict the size of the capture zone (Masters and
Ela, 2008).
In capture-zone type curve analysis, the curve corresponding to the maximum
acceptable pumping rate is first drawn. Then, the plume is superimposed onto the
capture-zone curve. By evaluating this superposition, it can be determined whether
or not the well of interest is sufficient to extract the entire plume. It can also be used
to specify the location of the well. It should be noted that both the capture-zone type
curve and the plume need to be drawn to the same scale. Figure 5.13 illustrates this
analysis (Masters and Ela, 2008).

Example 5.7

A confined aquifer has been contaminated and a rectangular (for simplicity) plume
has been created in this aquifer. To clean up this aquifer, it is decided to pump out
the groundwater and treat it at the aboveground facilities. Determine the location
of a single well that can totally extract the plume. The characteristics of the aquifer
are as follows:

• Thickness of the aquifer = 25 m

• Hydraulic conductivity = 1.5 × 10 −3 m/s
• Regional hydraulic gradient = 0.001
• Maximum pumping rate = 0.003 m3/s
• Width of the plume = 60 m
Groundwater Quality 217

Solution
First, the regional Darcy velocity is calculated as

dh
v=K = 1.5 × 10 −3m/s × 0.001 = 1.5 × 10 −6 m/s
dx

The width of the capture zone along the y-axis is

Q 0.003m3 /s
= = 40 m
2Bv 2 × 25 m × 1.5 × 10 −6 m/s

As discussed earlier in this section, at an infinite distance up-gradient, this width

becomes twice

Q
= 80m
Bv

Therefore, if the well is located some distance downgrading from the front edge,
the capture zone encompasses the 60 m wide plume (Figure 5.14). Considering
y = 30 m,

Q ⎛ ϕ⎞ ⎛ ϕ⎞
y= ⎜⎝ 1− ⎟⎠ = 30 = 40 ⎜⎝ 1− ⎟⎠
2Bv π π

From Figure 5.14,

y 30
x= = = 30 m
tan ϕ tan (0.25π)

Therefore, the extraction well should be placed in line with the oncoming plume
and 30 m ahead of it.

25 m Plume

1.5 × 10−3 m/s

30 m
φ 80 m Regional flow
40 m 60 m darcy velocity
X
Q = 0.003 m3/s

FIGURE 5.14  Problem with extraction well in Example 5.7.

218 Groundwater Hydrology: Engineering, Planning, and Management

y y

3
2Q
Q πBv
Q 2Q 3Q 3Q
x x
Bv πBv Bv Bv Bv

(a) Regional flow (b) Regional flow

FIGURE 5.15  Capture-zone type curves for optimally spaced wells along the y-axis, each
pumping at the rate Q: (a) two wells and (b) three wells. (From Masters, G.M. and Ela, W.P.,
Introduction to Environmental Engineering and Science, Prentice Hall Inc., Simon and
Schuster, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 576 p., 2008.)

The main issue in Example 5.7 is that the extraction well will be located far down-
gradient from the plume, which results in the extraction of a large volume of clean
groundwater before the contaminated plume reaches the well. This situation imposes
significant pumping costs. To solve this situation is to install more extraction wells
placed closer to the head of the plume.
Capture-zone type curves for a series of n optimally placed wells were also
derived by Javandel and Tsang (1986). They assumed each well is pumping at the
same rate, Q, and the wells are lined up along the y-axis. In this analysis, the
maximum spacing between wells is optimized while the wells prevent any flow
from passing between them. Therefore, the optimized distance between two wells
is Q/(πBv). Locating wells with this distance apart from each other provides the
possibility of capturing a plume as wide as Q/(Bv) along the y-axis and as wide
as 2Q/(Bv) along the x-axis, i.e., far up-gradient from the wells, (Figure 5.15a).
Figure 5.15b also depicts correspondent parameters for the case of three optimally
spaced wells.
A general form for the positive half of the capture-zone type curve for n optimally
spaced wells is
n
Q ⎛ 1 ⎞
y= ⎜n −
2 Bv ⎝ π ∑ ϕ ⎟⎠
i =1
i (5.40)

where φi is the angle between a horizontal line through the ith well and a spot on the
capture-zone curve. It is assumed in this equation that the wells have been arranged
symmetrically along the y-axis.

Example 5.8

Recalculate Example 5.7 for the case of two wells. What minimum pumping rate,
Q, is required to capture the plume completely? Assume the two optimally spaced
wells are aligned along the leading edge of the plume. What is the optimum space
between the wells?
Groundwater Quality 219

60 m 19.1 m Plume

Regional flow

FIGURE 5.16  Problem with two extraction wells in Example 5.8.

Imagine the length of the plume is 750 m, how long would it take to pump out
all of the contaminated groundwater? The aquifer porosity is 0.45.

Solution
The plume width along the y-axis (also the leading edge of the plume) is 60 m, so
from Figure 5.16,

Q Q
= = 60 m
Bv 25 m × 1.5 × 10 −6 m/s

Q = 0.00225 m3 /s

Therefore, each well has the pumping rate of 0.00225 m3/s. From Figure 5.16,
Q
optimal spacing between the wells =
≠Bv

0.00225 m3 /s
= = 19.1m
π × 25 × 1.5 × 10 −6 m/s

The porosity times the plume volume gives the volume of contaminated water in
the plume:

V = 0.45 × 60 × 25 × 750 m = 506,250 m3

The total pumping rate is 2 × 0.00225 m3/s = 0.0045 m3/s, therefore, the time to

pump out the total contaminated groundwater is

506, 250 m3
t= = 3.57 year
0.0045 m3 /s × 3, 600 s/h × 24 h/day × 365 day/year

220 Groundwater Hydrology: Engineering, Planning, and Management

However, it should be noted that it would take much longer to pump out the
whole plume due to retardation (which will be discussed in Chapter 9) and there
will also be some uncontaminated groundwater removed with the plume.

Details about designing more complicated well fields can be found in Gupta (1989)
and Bedient et al. (1994).

5.8  MODELING CONTAMINANT RELEASE

Analytical solutions of the advection–dispersion equation can be used for many
applications, such as assessing the potential impacts of releases of contaminants to
groundwater, estimating the potential exposure concentrations at different locations,
and providing tools for parameter estimation. Analytical models can also be used
for establishing the soil cleanup level. In this regard, critical exposure locations are
identified and exposure concentrations are determined for these locations. Then, the
models can be used “backwards” to calculate the concentration at source that would
result in this critical exposure. This procedure can be performed to establish the
minimum cleanup standard levels.

5.8.1  Modeling Instantaneous Release of Contaminants

A few models of chemical spills are briefly discussed in this section. Generally in
these models, the initial distribution of chemical concentrations is given and the
models determine how the changes of concentration are through time and space.
To simplify calculations, flow is usually considered 1D, despite the fact that dis-
persion transport can occur in 3Ds. Depending on the number of dimensions con-
sidered and the different initial distributions of contaminants, the models may vary.

5.8.1.1  Fourier Analysis in Solute Transport

The problem of transport of a solute in a uniform flow field in the x-direction, with
mixing in all three directions for an arbitrary initial distribution of contaminants can
be expressed as

∂c ∂c ∂ 2c ∂ 2c ∂ 2c
+ vʹ + λc = Dxx
ʹ 2
+ Dyy
ʹ 2
+ Dzzʹ 2 (5.41)
∂t ∂x ∂x ∂y ∂z

where
v′ = v/R is the retarded velocity
ʹ = Dxx /R is the retarded x-dispersion coefficient, etc.
Dxx

Fourier methods can be used to solve this equation. Based on these methods, the
solution to Equation 5.41 for a 1D case is
∞

c( x, t ) =
∫ c(ξ, 0)G( x, t ξ, 0)dξe − λt
(5.42)
−∞
Groundwater Quality 221

where

1 ⎛ ( x − ξ − v ʹt ) 2 ⎞
G( x, t ξ, 0) ≡ exp ⎜ − ⎟⎠ (5.43)
4πDʹt ⎝ 4 D ʹt

The function from Equation 5.43 plays the part of an impulse response function for
the partial differential Equation 5.41. It is called Green’s function. This function
gives the contribution to the solution at point x and time t due to the initial unit mass
at point x = ξ. The contaminant decays with the rate λ. The solution with decay is
equal to the solution without decay times the exponential decay term.

5.8.1.2  Point Spill Model

Imagine a contaminant with concentration c0 is being released with the volume V0 at
point x = 0. If the time period of release is so small that we can consider the release
instantaneous, the mass, M, released from the source is equal to c0V0. Then the con-
centration of the contaminant at point x and time t is

⎛ ( x − v ʹt ) 2 y2 z2 ⎞
V0c0 exp ⎜ − − −
⎝ 4 Dxx
ʹt ʹ t 4 Dzzʹ t ⎟⎠
4 Dyy
c( x, t ) = e − λt (5.44)
3 3
nR 64π
π Dxx
ʹ Dyy
ʹ Dzzʹ t

where R is the retardation factor. Also, the maximum concentration at any time is

V0c0
cmax (t ) = e − λt ; x = ( x, y, z) = (vʹt , 0, 0) (5.45)
nR 64π 3 Dxx ʹ Dzzʹ t 3
ʹ Dyy

5.8.1.3  Vertically Mixed Spill Model

If the release is mixed over the thickness of the aquifer, i.e., if the release occurs
through a fully penetrating and screened well, the transport equation is the same as
Equation 5.44, except that there are no vertical gradients and the term involving z
does not appear.

⎛ ( x − v ʹt ) 2 y2 ⎞
V0c0 exp ⎜ − −
⎝ 4 Dxx
ʹt ʹ t ⎟⎠ − λt
4 Dyy
c( x, t ) = e (5.46)
4πnbt Dxx Dyy

where b is the aquifer thickness and the retarded dispersion coefficient, R, is no

longer being used.

5.8.1.4  Vertical Mixing Region

If the point release of a contaminant is at the top of the aquifer, near the source, the
spreading is in 3Ds. In this case, Equation 5.44 is not applicable anymore and the
222 Groundwater Hydrology: Engineering, Planning, and Management

correct solution near the source is twice that of Equation 5.44. This is because it has
half of the mass spreading above the water table. The solution is then

⎛ ( x − v ʹt ) 2 y2 z2 ⎞
V0c0 exp ⎜ − − −
⎝ 4 Dxx
ʹt ʹ t 4 Dzzʹ t ⎟⎠
4 Dyy
c( x, t ) = e − λt (5.47)
3 3
4nR π Dxx
ʹ Dyy
ʹ Dzzʹ t

Far from the source, the contaminant is spread over the thickness of the aquifer and
is only spread in the two lateral directions. That is because the base of the aquifer
prevents further vertical migration (Figure 5.17). Therefore, Equation 5.47 cannot be
applied anymore and Equation 5.46 is used. Now, at what horizontal distance the 3D
solution ceased to be valid must be determined.
Equation 5.48 is appropriate both for the near-field and far-field solutions.
However, it is inconvenient to use the infinite system of images. Therefore, when
the simple 3D and 2D solutions can be applied in place of Equation 5.48 must be
identified.

⎛ ( x − v ʹt ) 2 y2 ⎞
V0c0 exp ⎜ − −
ʹ t ⎟⎠
∞
⎝ 4 Dxx
ʹt 4 Dyy ⎛ ( z + 2 jb)2 ⎞
c( x, y, z, t ) =
4nR π 3 Dxx ʹ Dzzʹ t 3
ʹ Dyy
e − λt
∑
j = −∞
exp ⎜ −
⎝ 4 Dzzʹ t ⎟⎠
(5.48)

Charbeneau (2000) shows that the 2D solution can be used when

Rb2
t> (5.49)
Dzz

By this time, the center of the spill would have moved a distance:

v t v b2
x= > (5.50)
R Dzz

Distance of 3D validation 2D

3D
3D

Impermeable layer

FIGURE 5.17  Schematic spreading of a point release.

Groundwater Quality 223

If mechanical dispersion dominates the mixing process, the 2D solution is valid after

b2
x> (5.51)
av

where av is the vertical dispersivity. Likewise, the 3D solution is valid up to the

distance:

0.2 v b2
x< (5.52)
Dzz

Therefore, the general solution of Equation 5.48 is used when

0.2 v b2 v b2
<x< (5.53)
Dzz Dzz

For shorter and longer distances, the single source 3D and 2D solutions are used,
respectively.

Example 5.9

An industrial facility releases its wastewater on the adjacent ground surface at the
top of an aquifer. The wastewater infiltrates into the underlying soil and reaches
the aquifer. If the velocity of groundwater in the aquifer is 1.5 m/day and the thick-
ness of the aquifer is 5 m, calculate the extent to which a 3D solution of the con-
taminant distribution is applicable. Also, determine from what distance the 2D
solution can be used. Assume that dynamic dispersivity is 6 m.

Solution
Dzz = aLv = 6 m × 1.5 m/day = 9 m2/day
The 3D solution can be applied up to

0.2v b 2 0.2 × 1.5 × 52

x< = = 0.83m
Dzz 9

And the 2D solution can be used from

v b 2 1.5 × 52
x> = = 4.17 m
Dzz 9

5.8.2  Modeling Continuous Release of Contaminants

If the source release continues at a constant rate, the contaminant distribution
appears as a plume that initially grows in length and width and eventually reaches