Final Report on Simulation of groundwater and chloride concentrations

at the Borden landfill

The objectives of the report is:

1. Simulate 2-D profile steady state groundwater flow simulation of the site using the finite
difference scheme implemented in excel.
2. Solve for the 3-D flow field using MODFLOW.
3. Solve for the chloride profile in 1979 using particle tracking implemented in excel in
for your 2D groundwater simulation. Use a random fluctuation in ground water velocity
to model dispersion.
4. Estimate the chloride profile in 1979 using an analytical equation.
5. Estimate the chloride profiles using the MODFLOW contaminant transport package.

Executive summary:
According to the uploaded Frind and Hokkanen paper and the modeling strategy employed
here, this report simulates head dispersion and chloride distribution beneath the Borden la
ndfill:
1. For the 2D finite difference model for groundwater flow in excel, the values considered
for different parameters is listed in the table below.

Recharge 15 cm/yr
Hydraulic Conductivity 1.17 X 10-4 m/s
Thickness 22 m
Δx 50 m
Δz 2m

And the 2D finite difference equation that is used here for the solution is one with
recharge and other without recharge:
 2D Finite Difference of GW
Flow
221.2
221
220.8
220.6
220.4
He

220.2
220
219.8
050 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600
650 700 750 800 850 900 950 100010501100
Distance -->

2. For MODFLOW modelling the initial specifications that were considered is as follows:
Transport active Retardation model: linear isotherm, Transport engine: MT3DMS,
Reaction: no kinetic reaction, Flow engine: USGS MODFLOW 2005 from WH, Start
date: Jan 1, 1940, Kx=ky=kz=0.000117 m/s (considering homogenous medium), Initial
head = 220 m, Specific yield = 0.2, Contaminant Initial concentration = 400 mg/l, Kd =
0 l/mg. For individual cells the head is calculated in the centre of the cells (node).

Defining layer elevations:

There are two layers in our model the first one is unconfined aquifer and the other one is
aquitard. We have defined the the initial head of unconfined aquifer (1st layer) 220m and for
aquitard it is taken as 203m which is the 2nd layer. Using MODFLOW-2005, the transient
groundwater flow model was created. 12 rows, 22 columns, and 2 layers make up the finite
difference model (Unconfined aquifer and aquitard). The entire grid is composed of 20 X 20
cells. The grid cells have a consistent size of 50 metres under these circumstances, covering an
area of around 106 metres. The model is been executed for chloride which acts as a conservative
contaminant (no sorption, no decay) therefore it is assumed to be the No kinetic reaction and
retardation model is linear isotherm in MT5DMS Transport engine.

Layer 1 conductivity: 0.000117 m/s (Aquifer which is considered homogeneous here carrying steady
state flow)
Layer 2 conductivity: 10^-10 m/s (Aquitard, as we know it has lower permeability).

And furthermore, this data is used in the modelling to know the dispersivity of the plume with
respect to the time and groundwater flow. As the default boundary condition is no flow, all the
other boundaries are no flow. So no need to add a head for right hand side. The boundary
conditions are applied as per presented in the research paper and described in detail under the
section Boundary conditions. Dispersion = 6 m; Ponding = 0.3 m; Recharge = 150 mm/yr added
at the top on layer 1 (unconfined aquifer); Constant head: starting and ending = 220 m.
Therefore, In MODFLOW-2005 settings: Run Type: Steady-state, Steady state simulation time:
14,600 has been considered to get an optimum simulation. In general specification of MT3DMS
setting, simulation time length is taken for 40 years and maximum number of transport steps are
1000.
'ti
ff/ MOl1FI OW-/ll(lS .,, MT:mMS

Max Change vs Iteration Number

l
Cl'.
UJJJillllliill[laJWJJJJ!filj mllillllilUUmm!:]!: ; - -0.022 U

--0.088

- -0.11
374

Iteration
MT3DMS - Modular 3-D Multi-Species Transport Model [Version
5.30] Developed at University of Alabama for U.S. Department of
Defense Using NAME File: mt3d.in
STRESS PERIOD NO. 1
From: 0.0000 To: 0.0000
Time Step: 1
Transport Step: 93 Step Size: 128.8 Total Elapsed Time: 13140.
Iterations: outer: 1 Inner: 5 Max change: 0.1025E-04 1 11 12
wallTime: 0.1 Total CPU_time: [Lay,Row,col]
0.0 sec.

0 yer _ [!I §:II§] Attribute Heads

- IIll Ill '" • 2.000
[:] f,o"' @ • Exaggeration
IWirefra D
1

101 Virtual grid • Virtual grid size

D Row
Ii 7:1" LayerV1ew
D Column
1
121 30

c
Objects in view
li'PX -
! B
I I I I I I I
11 aiai U
l !'l•
Toobox

0
§ ggri!!.U
I I I I I I I
3. The data used in particle tracking implemented in excel in for 2D groundwater
simulation is as follows:

R 4.75E-09 m/s
Ksat 0.000117 m/s
b 22 m/s
Δx 50
Δ x2 2500
Δz 2
Δ z2 4
2(Δ x2 + Δ z2) 5008
R *Δ z *Δ x2/K 0.202991453

X no. of blocks 22
Z no. of blocks 12

Particle tracking was used to replicate the chloride concentration over 40 years. For
particle tracking, a total of 100 particles were taken into account starting in the
beginning of the era, in 1940, and simulated until 1979. Every particle has a specific
seepage velocity
 that was determined by the head difference computed using a 2D finite difference model.
Each particle was given a random velocity fluctuation magnitude for dispersion. Each
particle's travel distance over a specific period of time was monitored, and a graph was
created.

10203040
60

50

40

30
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
DISTANCE
PARTIC

20

10

4. For estimating chloride profile in 1979. The data used for solving the problem and the
analytical equation that is used is:
 Concentration v/s time
160

140

120

0 100
CONCENTRATION

Concentration
80
v/s distance
400.0005
60
400
40
399.9995
20
399.999
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Distance (m)
399.9985
TIME
399.998

399.9975
Concentration

Based on the analytical solution performed the graph was plotted between distance and
concentration. Similarly, concentration vs time. Compared and nalysed with the
observation in the paper given, it
5. The conditions and considerations with outcomes are presented in 2 nd answer above. The
results and discussion for both 2nd and 5th individually will be presented in the conclusion
and discussion further.
Background

Why Borden Site?

From 1940 through 1976, the Borden landfill was in use on a regular basis. The dumping of trash
began over a small sand hill and grew slowly in a southerly direction. Up until 1973, the site was
used as an open landfill; following that, sophisticated landfill procedures were used until closure.
The finished landfill has a surface area of 5.4 acres and a thickness of 5 to 10 m. The Canadian
Forces Base Borden, a sizable military installation located 60 kilometres northwest of Toronto,
Canada, was the location of the Borden Experimental Site for Studies of Groundwater
Contamination until it was founded in 1978 (Cherry et al., 1996). The experimental site is largely
utilised for controlled studies in which a range of industrially produced chemicals, some of
which are dangerous compounds, are carefully released into the subterranean environment while
their movement and fate are meticulously tracked. The Borden site has contributed significantly
to the improvement of information regarding the behaviour, destiny, and cleanup of several
hazardous substances that are frequently found in groundwater in industrial regions of North
America and Europe for more than ten years (Anderson et al., 1979). The site is anticipated to be
used heavily throughout the remaining period of the decade and maybe longer.

This site qualifies as a test case for the assessment of numerical transport models due to its
properties. The location is hydrogeologically straightforward, the polluted plume has been
closely observed, the aquifer's features have been determined, and the aquifer's dispersive
properties have been investigated using data from the article, independent of the plume. The
actual plume spreads both horizontally and vertically.

Introduction

The employment of models to predict the movement of pollutants in groundwater systems has
received more attention in recent years due to the expanding popularity of subterranean waste
disposal. The effects of dispersion have been incorporated into contamination transport models
that have been used in a variety of real-world settings. Advection, dispersion (including
diffusion), and chemical reaction make up the transport process. The contamination plume is
located in an abandoned landfill on the Canadian Forces Base in Borden, Ontario, in a shallow
aquifer (Zhao et al., 2005). The landfill is situated above an unconstrained glaciofluvial sand
aquifer. Under the
landfill, the aquifer is roughly 20 m thick and thins out to around 9.5 m towards the north. The
vast deposit of sandy and clayey silt that the unconfined aquifer sits upon serves as a physical
barrier to the flow of pollutants. Hydraulic conductivity values were calculated using
permeameter measurements on Borden sand cores, with a mean value that ranged from 1.17 x 10
-2
cm/s to 8.7 x 10 -3 cm/s. The Borden sand's porosity was estimated to be 0.38. The majority of
the flow is said to be toward the north during the whole year. Increased spring recharge builds up
the water table beneath the landfill, increasing both the downward and outward flow away from
the dump. The mound remains missing the remainder of the year and disappears in the summer.
The natural vegetation and unaltered regions outside the landfill are thought to recharge on
average at a rate of between 10 and 20 cm per year. According to observations made in 1979, the
plume travels northward for roughly 750 metres from the dump. In addition, the plume's core
contains high- concentration peaks that may be the consequence of changes in the source's power
over time. Although it occupies the middle to lower part of the aquifer, it almost fills the whole
thickness of the aquifer beneath the landfill before getting thinner as it descends. A weak vertical
dispersion mechanism is indicated by the plume's sharp vertical gradient, which shows
concentrations changing quickly across close vertical distances at the top and bottom surfaces. In
addition, the plume's core contains high-concentration peaks that may be the consequence of
changes in the source's power over time. Recharge has a high value of 55 cm at the landfill, a
low value of 10 cm at the northern end, and a base value of 15 cm in the centre and southern
areas.

Error types occur with any numerical solution of the transport equation

The well-known grid Courant and Peclet criteria are applied to each coordinate direction to limit
the first of these mistakes, numerical dispersion. The Peclet requirements are
Even after the Peclet and Courant conditions have been fully met, the second form of error that
caused by the flow lines' divergence from the grid lines can still happen. Keeping the angle as
minimal as feasible can help to minimise this mistake, which is at its lowest point when the flow
lines and grid lines meet at a 45° angle. The grid must, however, be perfectly aligned with the
flow direction throughout in order to achieve complete elimination; this is referred to as a
principle direction scheme. This kind of mistake is anticipated to be present in the simulation
results inevitably since the flow direction in the Borden cross-section continuously changes from
virtually vertical to horizontal. Similar effects will also be seen by other number methods.

The third class of error is brought on by the coordinate transformation's Jacobian's tiny nonzero
terms.

Due to the tiny size of the solution matrices, the fourth class of error, known as machine, round
off, is identical to that of a traditional alternating direction finite difference scheme but is less
significant than that of a conventional finite element scheme.

At the Borden site, longitudinal dispersivities range from around 5 to 10 m. The huge
concentration gradients in the vertical direction imply that transverse vertical dispersivity will be
substantially less. We employed a longitudinal dispersivity range of 6 m for the parametric
analysis.

The 5 x 10 -5 m2/day value of the molecular diffusion coefficient D* is maintained.

Boundary Conditions

The water table serves as the model's top boundary, and the simulation is only allowed to cover
the saturated zone. The concentration at the border of the flow system is therefore assumed to
always be equal to that of the source, and this allows the source to be represented by a first-type
boundary condition (defined head). Another option is to utilise a third sort of boundary condition,
which determines the mass flow of contaminants entering the system but leaves the border
concentrations unconstrained.

Constant Head
No flow BC

No flow BC
The third-type boundary continuously adds mass to the system, whereas the first-type boundary
fixes the concentration at the boundary. Under either boundary condition, the plume does not
cross the water table boundary off-source due to its low transverse dispersivity of 0.01 m.

Modelling Approach

Using MODFLOW-2005, the transient groundwater flow model was created. 12 rows, 22
columns, and 2 layers make up the finite difference model (Unconfined aquifer and aquitard).
The entire grid is composed of 20 X 20 cells. The grid cells have a consistent size of 50 metres
under these circumstances, covering an area of around 106 metres. The cell size was determined
by taking into account three different aspects: (1) computing efficiency, (2) accurate
representation of the data, and (3) successful modelling of groundwater flow on a regional scale
(Zhou et al., 2011). From where layer 2 really starts, layer 1's thickness rises from 220 masl at
the top to 198 masl at the bottom, with a total depth of 22 m (average value taken into account).
For examining groundwater flow patterns and evaluating groundwater resources, the model was
calibrated under a steady state. Additionally, in order to examine groundwater flow systems, a
3D transient groundwater flow mode1 was created for the Borden landfill. The simulation period
for the transient model lasted from 1990 to 1976.

Application of 3D groundwater flow models has significantly advanced regional flow system
analysis. Due to its adaptable modular design, thorough coverage of hydrogeological processes,
and free public domain availability, MODFLOW has since its 1988 release become the industrial
benchmark for groundwater modelling around the world. MODFLOW-88 had incremental
updates to become MODFLOW-2000 (Harbaugh et al., 2000) and MODFLOW-2005 (Harbaugh
et al., 2005). The simulation of saturated-unsaturated flow processes, groundwater simulation-
optimization processes, irrigation processes, density dependent flow processes, parameter
optimization processes, and solute transport processes are all included in the MODFLOW
family's 2005 iteration.

The fundamental process is detailed in depth below because the majority of the models that will
be examined have been used at operational sites. In this example, there are two phases involved
in using an advection-dispersion model: the calibration phase, which comprises the following
steps:

1. To calibrate the groundwater flow model, hydraulic conductivity values and sometimes flow
rates at boundaries, sources, and sinks are changed until the model accurately resembles the
observed heads.

2. Darcy's Law is used to calculate groundwater velocities.

3. To calibrate the contaminant transport model, dispersivities and occasionally porosity are
changed until the model simulates the reported concentrations.

Conclusion

In the process of simulating Borden landfill sites using analytical models, the most important
step is to reliably calibrate the models involved to the observed groundwater flow and transport
conditions. The model MODFLOW 2005 is used to perform sensitivity studies on coupled two-
and three-dimensional systems. This model is proved to be practical tool in successfully
simulating the groundwater flow and contaminant transport conditions at the landfill site. But
wherein coming to the comparative study with the presented paper the values obtained in our
analytical solution shows a huge difference in the result that is less in the research article
whereas more in the analytical solution that is obtained the graph and illustrations are provided.
On the observation on Particle tracking, it was found that the velocity and time plays an
important role in diffusion of particles over years. With the evolution of time period, the
diffusion has observed to be increased, and same applies to velocity. Drawback here analysed
was, with the increase in magnitude the diffusion will probably increase the most, but might
cause the plume to spread more over the system. The groundwater and contaminant flow is
been designed using MODFLOW and is
presented above. Since, if we consider continuous source of contamination, after 40 years of
interval the plume is expected unidentical. And meanwhile would be very difficult for particle
tracking using analytical solution. In the future, it is expected that both advection-dispersion and
advection models will continue to be useful in studying groundwater contamination problems.

References

1. Anderson, Mary P.; Cherry, John A. (1979). Using models to simulate the movement of
contaminants through groundwater flow systems. C R C Critical Reviews in
Environmental Control, 9(2), 97–156. doi:10.1080/10643387909381669.

2. Cherry, J. A., Barker, J. F., Feenstra, S., Gillham, R. W., Mackay, D. M., & Smyth, D. J.
A. (1996). The Borden Site for Groundwater Contamination Experiments: 1978–1995.
Groundwater and Subsurface Remediation, 101–127. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-45750-0_7.

3. A.W. Harbaugh. MODFLOW-2005, the U.S. Geological Survey’s Modular Ground

Water Flow Model – The Groundwater Flow Process. Techniques and Methods 6–A16,
U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia (2005).

4. A.W. Harbaugh, E.R. Banta, M.C. Hill, M.G. McDonald. The U.S. Geological Survey’s
Modular Ground Water Flow Model – User Guide to Modularization Concepts and the
Ground Water Flow Process. U.S. Geological Survey (2000).

5. Xianda Zhao, Roger B. Wallace, David W. Hyndman, Michael J. Dybas, Thomas C.

Voice. (2005). Heterogeneity of chlorinated hydrocarbon sorption properties in a sandy
aquifer, Journal of Contaminant Hydrology, Volume 78, Issue 4, 2005, Pages 327-342,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jconhyd.2005.06.002.

6. Yangxiao Zhou, Wenpeng Li. A review of regional groundwater flow modeling,

Geoscience Frontiers, Volume 2, Issue 2, 2011, Pages 205-214.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gsf.2011.03.003.