Interpretation of LNAPL Thickness Measurements under Unsteady Conditions
Publication: Journal of Hydrologic Engineering
Volume 4, Issue 2
Abstract
In hydrocarbon-contaminated sites, it is common practice to estimate the total hydrocarbon volume based on the hydrocarbon thickness measurements made in monitoring wells. In most cases, the hydrocarbon thickness measurement data obtained from a well field and the volume estimate analysis based on these data show significant variations over time. In this paper we consider an important cause of this variation, which is neglected in most field applications, i.e., the unsteady ground-water table fluctuations and its effect on monitoring well measurements. The analytical solutions we present indicate that, under fluctuating ground-water table conditions, if the hydrocarbon volume estimates in the formation are based on monitoring well measurements made at one point in time, or if these estimates are based on a sequence of measurements made over a period of time, which then are evaluated independently, then the volume estimate results will be in significant error. The analysis discussed in this paper is based on the analytical solution of volumetric equilibrium equations for constant residual saturation levels. Thus, results discussed in this paper only may represent the best estimates of hydraulic equilibrium conditions at a contaminated site. For a complete analysis, in addition to the effect of ground-water table movement, the effect of entrapment on residual saturation, capillarity, hystereses, threshold pressures, and non-Darcian behavior should be included in the analysis. However, because of inherent nonlinearities introduced, such cases cannot be solved using analytical methods and the correlation between light nonaqueous phase liquid (LNAPL) thickness in the aquifer and the monitoring well cannot be determined easily. Based on our findings, we conclude that present-day volume estimation techniques, which are based solely on physical equilibrium models, are not reliable tools to estimate light nonaqueous phase liquid volume at contaminated sites under unsteady conditions.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
References
1.
Aral, M. M., and Liao, B. ( 1996). “Effect of groundwater table fluctuations on hydrocarbon thickness measurements.” Multimedia Envir. Simulations Lab. Rep. No. MESL-02-96, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta.
2.
Bouwer, H. ( 1978). Groundwater hydrology . McGraw-Hill, New York.
3.
Farr, A. M., Houghtalen, R. J., and McWhorter, D. B. ( 1990). “Volume estimation of light nonaqueous phase liquids in porous media.” Groundwater J., 28(1), 48–56.
4.
Kemblowski, M. W., and Chiang, C. Y. ( 1990). “Hydrocarbon thickness fluctuations in monitoring wells.” Groundwater J., 28(2), 244–252.
5.
Lenhard, R. J., and Parker, J. C. ( 1987). “Measurement and prediction of saturation-pressure relationships in three-phase porous media systems.” J. Contaminant Hydro., 1, 407–424.
6.
Lenhard, R. J., and Parker, J. C. ( 1988). “Experimental validation of the theory of extending two-phase saturation-pressure relations to three-fluid phase system for monotonic drainage paths.” Water Resour. Res., 24, 373–380.
7.
Parker, J. C., Lenhard, R. J., and Kuppusamy, T. ( 1987). “A parametric model for constitutive properties governing multiphase flow in porous media.” Water Resour. Res., 23, 618–624.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Journal of Hydrologic Engineering
Volume 4 • Issue 2 • April 1999
Pages: 125 - 134
History
Received: Mar 6, 1997
Published online: Apr 1, 1999
Published in print: Apr 1999
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Download citation
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.