Post on 11-Jan-2016
Field Verification of Computer CodesField Verification of Computer Codes for Predicting the Fate and Transport of for Predicting the Fate and Transport of
Salt in Soil and GroundwaterSalt in Soil and Groundwater
Malcolm Reeves, Erin McCaig, Andrew Karvonen
MDH Engineered Solutions Corp.
Tony Knafla
Equilibrium Environmental Inc.
2
R & D ProvidersR & D Providers
Alberta Environment
City of Calgary
Petroleum Technology Alliance of Canada
3
Significance to IndustrySignificance to Industry
• Why model the fate and transport of salt?Why model the fate and transport of salt?– to integrate data from diverse sourcesto integrate data from diverse sources– to highlight data deficienciesto highlight data deficiencies– to test conceptual hypothesesto test conceptual hypotheses– to quantify “unknowns”to quantify “unknowns”– to establish probable historyto establish probable history– to predict the future from the pastto predict the future from the past– to assess alternative remedial measuresto assess alternative remedial measures
4
Project OverviewProject Overview
• The project was conducted by MDH Engineered The project was conducted by MDH Engineered Solutions Corp and involved two successive Solutions Corp and involved two successive phases between October 2003 and March 2004phases between October 2003 and March 2004
• Field StudiesField Studies – Collected and supplemented data from four Collected and supplemented data from four
diverse field sitesdiverse field sites• Numerical Model StudiesNumerical Model Studies
– Verified ability recommended computer Verified ability recommended computer codes to predict the behaviour of salt at four codes to predict the behaviour of salt at four diverse field sitesdiverse field sites
5
SourcesSources
• Model contaminant sources M(x,t) = Q(x,t).C(x,t) can be Model contaminant sources M(x,t) = Q(x,t).C(x,t) can be entered into models in different ways, for example:entered into models in different ways, for example:
• Boundary ConditionsBoundary Conditions– Specified mass flux on a boundarySpecified mass flux on a boundary
– Specified concentration on a boundary Specified concentration on a boundary
• Initial ConditionsInitial Conditions– Specified spatial distribution of total mass at some time Specified spatial distribution of total mass at some time
– Specified spatial distribution of concentration at some timeSpecified spatial distribution of concentration at some time
• Observed data can be used to :Observed data can be used to :– specify an initial condition for forward modelling specify an initial condition for forward modelling
– predict an initial condition by history matchingpredict an initial condition by history matching
– Help determine (calibrate) material propertiesHelp determine (calibrate) material properties
– ..............................
• Ideally, model verification requires sites where material properties Ideally, model verification requires sites where material properties and sources are fully known in time and space.and sources are fully known in time and space.
6
Instantaneous SourcesInstantaneous Sources
Diffusion Advection & Diffusion/Dispersion
tot1t2 to
t1
t2
7
Ambiguous SourcesAmbiguous Sources
Same Source Mass
Same Source Distribution
Different Material Properties
Different Diffusion Time
tot1 tot2
= Same Concentration Profile
8
Ambiguous SourcesAmbiguous Sources
Same Material Properties
Same Source Mass
Different Source Distribution
Different Diffusion Time
tot1 tot2
= Same Concentration Profile
9
Ambiguity ExplainedAmbiguity Explained
= = √√ (D/2t) (D/2t)
There is an infinity of choices for D and t for the There is an infinity of choices for D and t for the same distribution parameter same distribution parameter
AA = = √√ (D/2t (D/2tAA)) = = √√ (D/2t) (D/2t)
Initial source distribution at time tInitial source distribution at time tAA with the with the distribution parameter distribution parameter AA will give distribution will give distribution parameter parameter after time (t –t after time (t –tAA), identical to a ), identical to a uniform source after time t.uniform source after time t.
10
Field SitesField Sites
• Site A Heavy oil sludge soil augmentation trialSite A Heavy oil sludge soil augmentation trial– Sandy soil Sandy soil – Deep naturally-attenuated saturated zone plumeDeep naturally-attenuated saturated zone plume
• Site B Drilling mud disposal trial Site B Drilling mud disposal trial – Clay soil Clay soil – Small shallow unsaturated zone plumeSmall shallow unsaturated zone plume
• Site C Pipeline break Site C Pipeline break – Clay soil Clay soil – Small shallow unsaturated zone plume Small shallow unsaturated zone plume
• Site D Road salt storage Site D Road salt storage – Silty sand and sandstone bedrockSilty sand and sandstone bedrock– Shallow unsaturated and deep saturated zone plumesShallow unsaturated and deep saturated zone plumes
11
Numerical CodesNumerical Codes• The ability of three public-domain codes to model the four sites was The ability of three public-domain codes to model the four sites was
verifiedverified
– CHEMFLO CHEMFLO • Oklahoma Agricultural Experiment Station (OAES)Oklahoma Agricultural Experiment Station (OAES)• 1D FDM unsaturated/saturated flow and transport1D FDM unsaturated/saturated flow and transport• Sorption reactionsSorption reactions
– UNSATCHEM UNSATCHEM • United States Salinity Laboratory (USSL)United States Salinity Laboratory (USSL)• 1D FEM unsaturated/saturated flow and transport1D FEM unsaturated/saturated flow and transport• Ion exchange, sorption reactionsIon exchange, sorption reactions
– VS2DTI VS2DTI • United Sates Geological Survey (USGS)United Sates Geological Survey (USGS)• 2D FDM unsaturated/saturated flow and transport2D FDM unsaturated/saturated flow and transport• Ion exchange, sorption reactionsIon exchange, sorption reactions
• Also included for continuity with earlier workAlso included for continuity with earlier work– LEACHMLEACHM
• J.Huston (researcher)J.Huston (researcher)• 1D FDM unsaturated flow and transport1D FDM unsaturated flow and transport• Ion exchange, sorption reactionsIon exchange, sorption reactions
12
Site C: Pipeline Break Site PlanSite C: Pipeline Break Site Plan
BH 5, MW 03-5
BH 02-1
MW 02-3A
BH 4, MW 03-4
BH 7, MW 03-7A
BH 02-1A
BH 02-1B
BH 8, MW 03-8CBH 8, MW 03-8B
BH 8, MW 03-8A
BH 02-2 BH 6, MW 03-6
MW 02-2A (destroyed)
Excavation Boundary to 2.0 mbgs
Estimated Impact Area
0 m 100 mScale 1:1000
PipelineN
BH 1
13
Site C: Pipeline Break ProblemSite C: Pipeline Break Problem
SandKs= 1x10-5 m/s
0 mbgs
10 mbgs
2.5 mbgs
3.5 mbgs
Water Table at 3.6 mbgs
Infiltration = 2 mm/yr
Constant Pressure Head = 6.4 m
Ks= 8x10-8 m/s
Instantaneous Applied Source = 70 g/L Chloride
(1715 kg)
Silty Clay
Ks= 3x10-8 m/sClay Till
Models Used:
•UNSATCHEM
•CHEMFLO
• LEACHM
14
Site C: Pipeline Break ResultsSite C: Pipeline Break Results
Sand
0 mbgs
10 mbgs
2.5 mbgs
3.5 mbgs
Silty Clay
Clay Till
0 18 5 10 15
Chloride Concentration (g/L)
70 g/L Chloride
BH-02-02BH1
UNSATCHEM Result
LEACHM Result
17.211.8
17.0
17.1
Time = 2002
CHEMFLO Result
17.0
15
Site C: Pipeline Break ResultsSite C: Pipeline Break Results
Sand
0 mbgs
10 mbgs
2.5 mbgs
3.5 mbgs
Silty Clay
Clay Till
0 10.0 2.5 5.0 7.5
Chloride Concentration (g/L)
70 g/L Chloride
CHEMFLO Result
BH8UNSATCHEM Result
3.33.3
4.4
Time = 2003
16
Site C: Pipeline Break DiscussionSite C: Pipeline Break Discussion
• Site C is a shallow site in a clay soilSite C is a shallow site in a clay soil• The source release is recent (4 years)The source release is recent (4 years)• Little movement has occurredLittle movement has occurred• Model match is precise and easy to obtainModel match is precise and easy to obtain• BUT……BUT……• Source term is unconstrainedSource term is unconstrained• Solution is highly ambiguousSolution is highly ambiguous• Any predictions likely of low reliabilityAny predictions likely of low reliability
17
Site B: Drilling Mud Site PlanSite B: Drilling Mud Site Plan
Type of Chloride Application Application
Rate (kg/ha)
KCl 1 0
2 5003 10004 20005 4000
NaCl
6 07 3508 7009 1400
10 2800
Boreholes used to verify model
18
Site B: Drilling Mud ProblemSite B: Drilling Mud Problem
0 mbgs
20 mbgs
Water Table at 16 mbgs
Infiltration = 20 mm/yr
Constant Pressure Head = 4.0 m
Applied Source = 9.7 g/L Chloride
3400 kg/ha
Ks= 4x10-9 m/sSilty Till
Models Used:
•UNSATCHEM
•CHEMFLO
•LEACHM
19
Site B: Drilling Mud ResultsSite B: Drilling Mud Results
0 mbgs
20 mbgs
9.7 g/L Chloride
Ks= 4x10-9 m/sSilty Till
0 400100 200 300
Chloride Concentration (mg/L)
370
27085
160
10 mbgs
5 mbgs
15 mbgs
290 280
M413-JM413-K
M413-L
M413-DUNSATCHEM Result
LEACHM Result
20
Site B: Drilling Mud DiscussionSite B: Drilling Mud Discussion
• Site B is a shallow site in a clay soilSite B is a shallow site in a clay soil• The source release is relatively old (16 years)The source release is relatively old (16 years)• Relatively little movement has occurredRelatively little movement has occurred• Present day data is scatteredPresent day data is scattered• Model match is not exact and difficult to obtainModel match is not exact and difficult to obtain• BUT……..BUT……..• Source term is reasonably well constrainedSource term is reasonably well constrained• Lateral dilution affects 1D models in long termLateral dilution affects 1D models in long term• History match should “over predict” peak concentration History match should “over predict” peak concentration • 1D model is inherently conservative over time1D model is inherently conservative over time• Predictions likely upper bound estimatesPredictions likely upper bound estimates
21
Site A: Heavy Oil Sludge Site PlanSite A: Heavy Oil Sludge Site Plan
To
Hw
y #16
Bush
Bush
Bush
0 m 100 m
Scale 1:3000
M413-19
M413-24
M413-16
M413-22
M413-7
M413-2
M413-5
M413-20
M413-15
M413-1
Topographic Low
FC CC
CC
N
FC Fallow Crop
CC Continuous Crop
Original Boreholes
2004 Boreholes
22
Site A: Heavy Oil Sludge ProblemSite A: Heavy Oil Sludge Problem
0 mbgs
14 mbgs
Water Table at 3.2 mbgs
Infiltration = 2 mm/y
No Flow Boundary
Applied Source = 220 g/L Chloride
for 3 months
Silt Ks= 1x10-6 m/s
Model Used:
•VS2DTI
Ks= 2x10-8 m/s
Till
Ks= 8x10-4 m/s
Sand
Infiltration = 12 mm/yInfiltration = 12 mm/y
10 mbgs
Direction of Groundwater Flow
0 m 680 m
No
Flo
w B
ou
nd
ary
Total Head = - 3.2 m
Seepage Face5 mbgs
23
Site A: Heavy Oil Sludge ModelSite A: Heavy Oil Sludge Model
Moisture Content
Saturation
Pressure Head
Darcy Flux
24
Site A: Heavy Oil Sludge ResultsSite A: Heavy Oil Sludge Results
1 year
10 years
5 years
15 years
25
Site A: Heavy Oil Sludge ResultsSite A: Heavy Oil Sludge Results
18 years
Applied Source = 220 g/L Chloride
for 3 months
Seepage Face
26
Site A: Heavy Oil Sludge DiscussionSite A: Heavy Oil Sludge Discussion
• Site A is a relatively deep site in a sandy soilSite A is a relatively deep site in a sandy soil• The source release is relatively old (18 years)The source release is relatively old (18 years)• Much movement has occurredMuch movement has occurred• Present day data is ambiguousPresent day data is ambiguous• 2D saturated/unsaturated model needed2D saturated/unsaturated model needed• Model match is not exact and difficult to obtainModel match is not exact and difficult to obtain• BUT……..BUT……..• Source term is reasonably well constrainedSource term is reasonably well constrained• Model simulation is plausibleModel simulation is plausible• Results are consistent with site dataResults are consistent with site data
27
Site D: Road Salt Storage Site PlanSite D: Road Salt Storage Site Plan
Infiltration Gallery
Bow River
21
Retention Pond
Ma
in B
uil
din
g
Bearspaw Dam Road
Canadian Pacific Rail Line
Salt Storage
Area
Bushes
11
7 S
t N
W
Parking Area
Bus Parking & Storage
Area
Stockpile Aggregate with NaCl
Silo with Pure NaCl
Stockpile Aggregate with NaCl & CaCl
3
1
2
3
N
0 m 100 m
Scale 1:2000
28
Site D: Road Salt Storage ProblemSite D: Road Salt Storage Problem
0 mbgs
22 mbgs
Water Table at 6.5 mbgs
No Flow Boundary
Applied Source = 220 g/L Chloride
Annually for 2 months
Silty Sand
Model Used:
•VS2DTI
Ks= 2.5x10-6 m/s
Sandstone
Infiltration = 20 mm/yr
8.5 mbgs
Ks= 5.0 x10-6 m/s
13.5 mbgs
Pressure Head = 0 m
Pressure Head = 0 m
0 m 334 m
Total Head = - 6.5 m
No Flow Boundary
Ks= 1.25 x10-9m/s
Shale
29
Darcy Flux
Site D: Road Salt Storage ResultsSite D: Road Salt Storage Results
Moisture Content
Saturation
Pressure Head
30
Site D: Road Salt Storage ResultsSite D: Road Salt Storage Results
1 year 5 years
19 years 46 years
31
Site D: Road Salt Storage DiscussionSite D: Road Salt Storage Discussion
• Site D is a relatively deep site in a sandy soilSite D is a relatively deep site in a sandy soil• The source release is relatively old (25+ years)The source release is relatively old (25+ years)• Much movement has occurredMuch movement has occurred• Present day data is clear at discharge pointPresent day data is clear at discharge point• 2D saturated/unsaturated model needed2D saturated/unsaturated model needed• Model match is not exact and difficult to obtainModel match is not exact and difficult to obtain• BUT……..BUT……..• Source term is reasonably well constrainedSource term is reasonably well constrained• Model simulation is plausibleModel simulation is plausible• Results are consistent with site dataResults are consistent with site data
32
ConclusionsConclusions
• Model results mimic observed data using information from Model results mimic observed data using information from detailed site investigationsdetailed site investigations
• CHEMFLO, UNSATCHEM, VS2DTI performed as expected and CHEMFLO, UNSATCHEM, VS2DTI performed as expected and were verified at three siteswere verified at three sites
• The pipeline-break site could not be used for verification but the The pipeline-break site could not be used for verification but the modelling helped constrain the probable mass spilledmodelling helped constrain the probable mass spilled
• Recent shallow spills are easy to match with models but Recent shallow spills are easy to match with models but predictive capability is likely limitedpredictive capability is likely limited
• The verification study suggested that reduced data sets would The verification study suggested that reduced data sets would make model conceptualization much less reliable make model conceptualization much less reliable
• Modelling provided a powerful interpretive and predictive tool Modelling provided a powerful interpretive and predictive tool but is not a substitute for high-quality, site-specific databut is not a substitute for high-quality, site-specific data
33
AcknowledgementsAcknowledgements
Alberta Environment
PTAC Soil Salinity Working Group
Special thanks to:
Les Henry, Professor Emeritus, Soil Science, U of S
Dan Bulat, Envirotech Engineering Inc.
Roxanne Pauls, MDH Engineered Solutions Corp