Advertisement

Numerical assessments of recharge-dominated groundwater flow and transport in the nearshore reclamation area in western Taiwan

  • Chuen-Fa NiEmail author
  • Wei-Ci Li
  • Shaohua Marko Hsu
  • I-Hsien Lee
  • Chi-Ping Lin
Article
  • 36 Downloads

Abstract

This study employed experimental and numerical methods to assess the behavior of conservative solute transport for a selected temporary solid waste site in a reclamation area in western Taiwan. Calibrating a site-specific numerical model, finite element model of water flow through saturated-unsaturated media (FEMWATER), relies on observations from field- and laboratory-scale hydraulic tests and spatial-temporal monitoring. The field-scale experiment used a modified hydraulic tomography survey (MHTS) to identify near surface aquifer stratifications and estimate the distribution of saturated hydraulic conductivity. The pressure plate experiments provided parameters for the van Genuchten soil characteristic model. Sensitivity analyses were then conducted based on varied recharge rates and dispersivities applied to the calibrated model. Observations of groundwater levels and salinity in the wells indicated that the regional groundwater flow was from southeast to northwest. In addition, a shallow freshwater layer was noted in the study area. The tidal-induced amplitudes for water level fluctuation in the wells ranged from 2 to 20 cm, depending on their distance from the seawater body. MHTS showed clear stratification, similar to that of well loggings at the storage site. The hydraulic conductivity at the test site ranged from 8 to 10 m/day, which is close to that obtained from the laboratory falling head test. The results of particle-tracking modeling showed that the critical recharge rate for the site needed to enhance plume traveling is 1000 mm/year. The increase in dispersivity values induced a decrease in plume travel time of up to 1000 days from the site to the coastal line. A special case for pulse releasing solute at the site shows that the key factor in controlling plume migration is the recharge rate. This is due to the low natural head gradient in the reclamation area. The results therefore suggest that a land drainage system near the site can play an important role in contaminant transport in the reclamation area.

Keywords

Reclamation area Numerical model Solute transport Solid waste site Hydraulic tomography 

Notes

Funding

This research was supported by Dragon Steel, under grant 14C1M0014, and partially supported by Soil and Groundwater Pollution Remediation Fund in 2017 and 2018, by the Institute of Nuclear Energy Research under grant NL1030099, and by Water Resources Planning Institute under grant 107705.

References

  1. Alexander, M., Berg, S. J., & Illman, W. A. (2011). Field study of hydrogeologic characterization methods in a heterogeneous aquifer. Ground Water, 49(3), 365–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Amato, D. W., Bishop, J. M., Glenn, C. R., Dulai, H., & Smith, C. M. (2016). Impact of submarine groundwater discharge on marine water quality and reef biota of Maui. PLoS One, 11(11), e0165825.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anwar, N., Robinson, C., & Barry, D. A. (2014). Influence of tides and waves on the fate of nutrients in a nearshore aquifer: numerical simulations. Advances in Water Resources, 73, 203–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ataie-Ashtiani, B., Volker, R. E., & Lockington, D. A. (1999). Tidal effects on sea water intrusion in unconfined aquifers. Journal of Hydrology, 216(1–2), 17–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bakhtyar, R., Brovelli, A., Barry, D. A., Robinson, C., & Li, L. (2013). Transport of variable-density solute plumes in beach aquifers in response to oceanic forcing. Advances in Water Resources, 53, 208–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Berg, S. J., & Illman, W. A. (2015). Comparison of hydraulic tomography with traditional methods at a highly heterogeneous site. Groundwater, 53(1), 71–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Berg, S. J., Illman, W. A., & Mok, C. M. W. (2015). Joint estimation of hydraulic and poroelastic parameters from a pumping test. Groundwater, 53(5), 759–770.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bohling, G. C., Butler, J. J., Zhan, X., & Knoll, M. D. (2007). A field assessment of the value of steady shape hydraulic tomography for characterization of aquifer heterogeneities. Water Resource Research, 43(5), W05430.  https://doi.org/10.1029/2006WR004932.
  9. Boufadel, M. C., Sharifi, Y., Van Aken, B., Wrenn, B. A., & Lee, K. (2010). Nutrient and oxygen concentrations within the sediments of an Alaskan beach polluted with the Exxon Valdez oil spill. Environmental Science & Technology, 44(19), 7418–7424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Boufadel, M. C., Xia, Y., & Li, H. (2011). Modeling solute transport and transient seepage in a laboratory beach under tidal influence. Environmental Modelling & Software, 26(7), 899–912.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Brovelli, A., Mao, X., & Barry, D. A. (2007). Numerical modeling of tidal influence on density dependent contaminant transport. Water Resource Research, 43(10), W10426.  https://doi.org/10.1029/2006WR005173.
  12. Burgherr, P. (2007). In-depth analysis of accidental oil spills from tankers in the context of global spill trends from all sources. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 140(1–2), 245–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Butler, J. J. (1997) The design, performance, and analysis of slug tests. Boca Raton: CRC Press, p. 262.Google Scholar
  14. Butler, J. J., & Liu, W. (1993). Pumping tests in nonuniform aquifers: the radially asymmetric case. Water Resources Research, 29(2), 259–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cardiff, M., Barrash, W., & Kitanidis, P. K. (2013). Hydraulic conductivity imaging from 3-D transient hydraulic tomography at several pumping/observation densities. Water Resources Research, 49, 7311–7326.  https://doi.org/10.1002/wrcr.20519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Chang, S. W., & Clement, T. P. (2012). Experimental and numerical investigation of saltwater intrusion dynamics in flux controlled groundwater systems. Water Resource Research, 48(9), W09527.  https://doi.org/10.1029/2012WR012134.
  17. Chang, S. W., & Clement, T. P. (2013). Laboratory and numerical investigation of transport processes occurring above and within a saltwater wedge. Journal of Contaminant Hydrology, 147, 14–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Chen, H., & Pinder, G. F. (2011). Investigation of groundwater contaminant discharge into tidally influenced surface-water bodies: experimental results. Transport in Porous Media, 89(3), 307–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gallage, C., Kodikara, J., & Uchimura, T. (2013). Laboratory measurement of hydraulic conductivity functions of two unsaturated sandy soils during drying and wetting processes. Soils and Foundations, 53(3), 417–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Garbossa, L. H. P., Souza, R. V., Campos, C. J. A., Vanz, A., Vianna, L. F. N., & Rupp, G. S. (2016). Thermotolerant coliform loadings to coastal areas of Santa Catarina (Brazil) evidence the effect of growing urbanisation and insufficient provision of sewerage infrastructure. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 189(1), 27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gelhar, L. W., Welty, C., & Rehfeldt, K. R. (1992). A critical review of data on field-scale dispersion in aquifers. Water Resources Research, 28(7), 1955–1974.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Guo, H., & Jiao, J. J. (2007). Impact of coastal land reclamation on ground water level and the sea water interface. Ground Water, 45(3), 362–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hao, Y., Yeh, T.-C. J., Xiang, J., Illman, W. A., Ando, K., Hsu, K.-C., & Lee, C.-H. (2008). Hydraulic tomography for detecting fracture zone connectivity. Ground Water, 46(2), 183–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Illman, W. A., Liu, X., & Craig, A. (2007). Steady-state hydraulic tomography in a laboratory aquifer with deterministic heterogeneity: multi-method and multiscale validation of hydraulic conductivity tomograms. Journal of Hydrology, 341(3–4), 222–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Illman, W. A., Liu, X., Takeuchi, S., Yeh, T. C. J., Ando, K., & Saegusa, H. (2009). Hydraulic tomography in fractured granite: Mizunami underground research site, Japan. Water Resource Research, 45(1), W01406.  https://doi.org/10.1029/2007WR006715.
  26. Levine, B. M., White, J. R., & DeLaune, R. D. (2017). Impacts of the long-term presence of buried crude oil on salt marsh soil denitrification in Barataria Bay, Louisiana. Ecological Engineering, 99, 454–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Li, H., & Boufadel, M. C. (2010). Long-term persistence of oil from the Exxon Valdez spill in two-layer beaches. Nature Geoscience, 3(2), 96–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Li, H., & Boufadel, M. C. (2011). A tracer study in an Alaskan gravel beach and its implications on the persistence of the Exxon Valdez oil. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 62(6), 1261–1269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Li, L., Barry, D. A., Stagnitti, F., & Parlange, J. Y. (1999). Submarine groundwater discharge and associated chemical input to a coastal sea. Water Resources Research, 35(11), 3253–3259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Li, W., Englert, A., Cirpka, O. A., & Vereecken, H. (2008). Three-dimensional geostatistical inversion of flowmeter and pumping test data. Ground Water, 46(2), 193–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Li, W.-C., Ni, C.-F., Tsai, C.-H., & Wei, Y.-M. (2016). Effects of hydrogeological properties on sea-derived benzene transport in unconfined coastal aquifers. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 188(5), 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lin, H. C. J., Richards, D. R., Yeh, G. T., Cheng, J. R., & Cheng, H. P. (1997). FEMWATER: A Three-dimensional finite element computer model for simulating density-dependent flow and transport in variably saturated media (No. WES/TR/CHL-97-12). Vicksburg: Army engineer waterways experiment station vicksburg ms coastal hydraulics lab.Google Scholar
  33. Liu, Y., Mao, X., Chen, J., & Barry, D. A. (2014). Influence of a coarse interlayer on seawater intrusion and contaminant migration in coastal aquifers. Hydrological Processes, 28(20), 5162–5175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Liu, Y., Shao, J., & Cui, Y. (2015). A double-porosity slug test model for a sloping fracture zone. Environmental Earth Sciences, 74(7), 5875–5884.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Mao, X., Enot, P., Barry, D. A., Li, L., Binley, A., & Jeng, D. S. (2006). Tidal influence on behaviour of a coastal aquifer adjacent to a low-relief estuary. Journal of Hydrology, 327(1–2), 110–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Neuman, S. P. (1988). In E. Custodio, A. Gurgui, & J. P. L. Ferreira (Eds.), Groundwater flow and quality modelling (pp. 331–362). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Ni, C. F., & Li, S. G. (2005). Simple closed form formulas for predicting groundwater flow model uncertainty in complex, heterogeneous trending media. Water Resources Research, 41(11), W11503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Ni, C. F., & Li, S. G. (2006). Modeling groundwater velocity uncertainty in complex composite media. Advances in Water Resources, 29, 1866–1875.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Ni, C. F., & Yeh, T. C. J. (2008). Stochastic inversion of pneumatic cross-hole tests and barometric pressure fluctuations in heterogeneous unsaturated formations. Advances in Water Resources, 31(12), 1708–1718.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Ni, C. F., Yeh, T. C. J., & Chen, J. S. (2009). Cost-effective hydraulic tomography surveys for predicting flow and transport in heterogeneous aquifers. Environmental Science & Technology, 43(10), 3720–3727.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Ni, C. F., Li, S. G., Liu, C. J., & Hsu, S. M. (2010). Efficient conceptual framework to quantify flow uncertainty in large-scale, highly nonstationary groundwater systems. Journal of Hydrology, 384, 297–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Ni, C. F., Huang, Y. J., Dong, J. J., & Yeh, T. C. (2015). Sequential hydraulic tests for transient and highly permeable unconfined aquifer systems-model development and field-scale implementation. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences Discussions, 12, 12567–12613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Nick, H. M., Raoof, A., Centler, F., Thullner, M., & Regnier, P. (2013). Reactive dispersive contaminant transport in coastal aquifers: numerical simulation of a reactive Henry problem. Journal of Contaminant Hydrology, 145, 90–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Peterson, C. H., Rice, S. D., Short, J. W., Esler, D., Bodkin, J. L., Ballachey, B. E., & Irons, D. B. (2003). Long-term ecosystem response to the Exxon Valdez oil spill. Science, 302(5653), 2082–2086.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Pool, M., Post, V. E. A., & Simmons, C. T. (2015). Effects of tidal fluctuations and spatial heterogeneity on mixing and spreading in spatially heterogeneous coastal aquifers. Water Resources Research, 51(3), 1570–1585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Robinson, M., Gallagher, D., & Reay, W. (1998). Field observations of tidal and seasonal variations in ground water discharge to tidal estuarine surface water. Ground Water Monitoring & Remediation, 18(1), 83–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Robinson, C., Li, L., & Barry, D. A. (2007). Effect of tidal forcing on a subterranean estuary. Advances in Water Resources, 30(4), 851–865.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Robinson, C., Brovelli, A., Barry, D. A., & Li, L. (2009). Tidal influence on BTEX biodegradation in sandy coastal aquifers. Advances in Water Resources, 32(1), 16–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Sbarbati, C., Colombani, N., Mastrocicco, M., Aravena, R., & Petitta, M. (2015). Performance of different assessment methods to evaluate contaminant sources and fate in a coastal aquifer. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 22(20), 15536–15548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Shen, C., Zhang, C., Jin, G., Kong, J., & Li, L. (2016). Effects of unstable flow on solute transport in the marsh soil and exchange with coastal water. Geophysical Research Letters, 43(23), 12,091–012,101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Simmons, C. T., Fenstemaker, T. R., & Sharp, J. M., Jr. (2001). Variable-density groundwater flow and solute transport in heterogeneous porous media: approaches, resolutions and future challenges. Journal of Contaminant Hydrology, 52(1–4), 245–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Straface, S., Yeh, T. C. J., Zhu, J., Troisi, S., & Lee, C. H. (2007). Sequential aquifer tests at a well field, Montalto Uffugo Scalo, Italy. Water Resource Research, 43(7), W07432.  https://doi.org/10.1029/2006WR005287.
  53. Trefry, M. G. (1999). Periodic forcing in composite aquifers. Advances in Water Resources, 22(6), 645–656.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Uchiyama, Y., Nadaoka, K., Rölke, P., Adachi, K., & Yagi, H. (2000). Submarine groundwater discharge into the sea and associated nutrient transport in a Sandy Beach. Water Resources Research, 36(6), 1467–1479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Ullman, W. J., Chang, B., Miller, D. C., & Madsen, J. A. (2003). Groundwater mixing, nutrient diagenesis, and discharges across a sandy beachface, Cape Henlopen, Delaware (USA). Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 57(3), 539–552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Van Genuchten, M. T. (1980). A closed-form equation for predicting the hydraulic conductivity of unsaturated soils. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 44(5), 892–898.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Van Genuchten, M. Th., Leij, F. J., & Yates, S. R. (1991). The RETC code for quantying the hydraulic functions of unsaturated soils; EPA/600/2-91/065. In R. S. Kerr (Ed.), Environmental Research Laboratory. ADA: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.Google Scholar
  58. Volker, R. E., Zhang, Q., & Lockington, D. A. (2002). Numerical modelling of contaminant transport in coastal aquifers. Mathematics and Computers in Simulation, 59(1–3), 35–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Weiskel, P. K., & Howes, B. L. (1992). Differential transport of sewage-derived nitrogen and phosphorus through a coastal watershed. Environmental Science & Technology, 26(2), 352–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Xia, Y., Li, H., Boufadel, M. C., & Sharifi, Y. (2010). Hydrodynamic factors affecting the persistence of the Exxon Valdez oil in a shallow bedrock beach. Water Resource Research, 46(10), W10528.  https://doi.org/10.1029/2010WR009179.
  61. Yeh, T. C. J., & Liu, S. (2000). Hydraulic tomography: development of a new aquifer test method. Water Resources Research, 36(8), 2095–2105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Zha, Y., Yeh, T. J., Illman, W. A., Tanaka, T., Bruines, P., Onoe, H., Saegusa, H., Mao, D., Takeuchi, S., & Wen, J. (2016). An application of hydraulic tomography to a large-scale fractured granite site, Mizunami, Japan. Groundwater, 54, 793–804.  https://doi.org/10.1111/gwat.12421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Zhang, Q., Volker, R. E., & Lockington, D. A. (2001). Influence of seaward boundary condition on contaminant transport in unconfined coastal aquifers. Journal of Contaminant Hydrology, 49(3–4), 201–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Zhang, Q., Volker, R. E., & Lockington, D. A. (2002). Experimental investigation of contaminant transport in coastal groundwater. Advances in Environmental Research, 6(3), 229–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Zhu, J., & Yeh, T.-C. J. (2005). Characterization of aquifer heterogeneity using transient hydraulic tomography. Water Resource Research, 41(7), W07028.  https://doi.org/10.1029/2004WR003790.

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Graduate Institute of Applied GeologyNational Central UniversityTaoyuan CityTaiwan
  2. 2.Center for Environmental StudiesNational Central UniversityTaoyuan CityTaiwan
  3. 3.Department of Water Resources Engineering & ConservationFeng Chia UniversityTaichungTaiwan

Personalised recommendations