Uncertainty and data worth analysis for the hydraulic design of funnel‐and‐gate systems in heterogeneous aquifers

[1] Hydraulic failure of a funnel-and-gate system may occur when the contaminant plume bypasses the funnels rather than being captured by the gate. We analyze the uncertainty of capturing the plumes by funnel-and-gate systems in heterogeneous aquifers. Restricting the analysis to two-dimensional, steady state flow, we characterize plume capture by the values of the stream function at the boundaries of the plume and the funnels. On the basis of the covariance of the log conductivity distribution we compute the covariance matrix of the relevant stream function values by a matrix-based first-order second-moment method, making use of efficient matrix-multiplication techniques. From the covariance matrix of stream function values, we can approximate the probability that the plume is bypassing the funnels. We condition the log conductivity field to measurements ofthe logconductivity and the hydraulic head. Prior to performing additional measurements, we estimate their worth by the expected reduction in the variance of stream function differences. In an application to a hypothetical aquifer, we demonstrate that our method of uncertainty propagation and our sampling strategy enable us to discriminate between cases of success and failure of funnel-and-gate systems with a small number of additional samples. INDEX TERMS: 1829 Hydrology: Groundwater hydrology; 1869 Hydrology: Stochastic processes; 1832 Hydrology: Groundwater transport; KEYWORDS: conditioning, data worth, funnel-and-gate systems, heterogeneous aquifers, stream function, uncertainty propagation

[1]  S. Rouhani Variance Reduction Analysis , 1985 .

[2]  E. C. Childs Dynamics of fluids in Porous Media , 1973 .

[3]  W. Durand Dynamics of Fluids , 1934 .

[4]  Peter Richards Construction of a permeable reactive barrier in a residential neighborhood , 2002 .

[5]  N. Sun Inverse problems in groundwater modeling , 1994 .

[6]  John A. Cherry,et al.  In Situ Remediation of Contaminated Ground Water: The Funnel-and-Gate System , 1994 .

[7]  S. Gorelick,et al.  When enough is enough: The worth of monitoring data in aquifer remediation design , 1994 .

[8]  Michael D. Dettinger,et al.  First order analysis of uncertainty in numerical models of groundwater flow part: 1. Mathematical development , 1981 .

[9]  Craig H. Benson,et al.  Effects of heterogeneity on influent and effluent concentrations from horizontal permeable reactive barriers , 2002 .

[10]  Day,et al.  Geotechnical techniques for the construction of reactive barriers , 1999, Journal of hazardous materials.

[11]  C. R. Dietrich,et al.  Fast and Exact Simulation of Stationary Gaussian Processes through Circulant Embedding of the Covariance Matrix , 1997, SIAM J. Sci. Comput..

[12]  L. Townley,et al.  Computationally Efficient Algorithms for Parameter Estimation and Uncertainty Propagation in Numerical Models of Groundwater Flow , 1985 .

[13]  W. Nowak,et al.  A modified Levenberg-Marquardt algorithm for quasi-linear geostatistical inversing , 2004 .

[14]  E. D. Brill,et al.  A method for locating wells in a groundwater monitoring network under conditions of uncertainty , 1988 .

[15]  Dale L. Zimmerman,et al.  Computationally exploitable structure of covariance matrices and generalized convariance matrices in spatial models , 1989 .

[16]  John M. Shafer,et al.  Design Screening Tools for Passive Funnel and Gate Systems , 1999 .

[17]  P. Kitanidis Quasi‐Linear Geostatistical Theory for Inversing , 1995 .

[18]  K. Dennehy,et al.  Hydraulic and Geochemical Performance of a Permeable Reactive Barrier Containing Zero‐Valent Iron, Denver Federal Center , 1999 .

[19]  John M. Shafer,et al.  Funnel‐and‐Gate Performance in a Moderately Heterogeneous Flow Domain , 2001 .

[20]  Roko Andričević,et al.  Coupled withdrawal and sampling designs for groundwater supply models , 1993 .

[21]  Wolfgang Nowak,et al.  Efficient Computation of Linearized Cross-Covariance and Auto-Covariance Matrices of Interdependent Quantities , 2003 .

[22]  Y. Rubin Applied Stochastic Hydrogeology , 2003 .

[23]  Wolfgang Nowak,et al.  First‐order variance of travel time in nonstationary formations , 2004 .

[24]  George F. Pinder,et al.  Search strategy for groundwater contaminant plume delineation , 2003 .

[25]  C. Benson,et al.  Effects of aquifer heterogeneity and reaction mechanism uncertainty on a reactive barrier. , 1999, Journal of hazardous materials.

[26]  G. Dagan Time‐dependent macrodispersion for solute transport in anisotropic heterogeneous aquifers , 1988 .

[27]  D. Ahlfeld,et al.  Advective control of groundwater contaminant plumes: Model development and comparison to hydraulic control , 1999 .

[28]  Joel Massmann,et al.  Hydrogeological Decision Analysis: 4. The Concept of Data Worth and Its Use in the Development of Site Investigation Strategies , 1992 .

[29]  G. Teutsch,et al.  Design of in-situ reactive wall systems - a combined hydraulical-geochemical-economical simulation study , 1997 .

[30]  G. Christakos,et al.  Sampling design for classifying contaminant level using annealing search algorithms , 1993 .

[31]  B. Hobbs,et al.  Review of Ground‐Water Quality Monitoring Network Design , 1993 .

[32]  A. Gavaskar,et al.  Design and construction techniques for permeable reactive barriers. , 1999, Journal of hazardous materials.