HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Abstract Full Text Free Full Text (PDF) Free Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in ISI Web of Science Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (2) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Zhou, Q. Articles by Jordan, P. D. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Zhou, Q. Articles by Jordan, P. D. GeoRef GeoRef Citation Agricola Articles by Zhou, Q. Articles by Jordan, P. D. Related Collections Volatile Organic Compounds Spatial Variability Inverse Procedures/Parameter Estimation

Modeling Three-Dimensional Groundwater Flow and Advective Contaminant Transport at a Heterogeneous Mountainous Site in Support of Remediation

Earth Sciences Division, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720

View larger version (61K): [in a new window]   Fig. 1. Location of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Old Town site, representative buildings (blue polygons) with building numbers, and contours of the ground-surface elevation (m above mean sea level) (black solid lines).

View larger version (55K): [in a new window]   Fig. 2. Contaminant plumes observed at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory's Old Town site in 2003 (gray flood) and groundwater collection trenches (white polygons) installed for restoration.

View larger version (96K): [in a new window]   Fig. 3. Thickness contours of the Moraga unit (in gray-scale flood)) and the top elevation contours (blue solid lines) of the underlying Orinda unit (or Mixed unit, if present). Also shown is the location of all boreholes and wells (circles) used to determine the geologic model, as well as the model boundary (thick solid line). Note the location of the geologic divide and the saddle.

View larger version (102K): [in a new window]   Fig. 4. Geologic profiles along the east–west axis (A–A') and the south–north axis (B–B'), obtained in the geologic model and the representative average groundwater level along the two cross sections (dashed lines).

View larger version (28K): [in a new window]   Fig. 5. Model boundary with four different boundary segment groups (thick solid lines) (A–B, B46 group; C–D, B58 group; E–F, B6-Lawrence-Road group; and G–H, upstream group) and four no-flow boundary segments (dotted-dashed lines). Also shown are monitoring wells in the model domain (circles) and on the boundary (filled squares).

View larger version (58K): [in a new window]   Fig. 6. (A) Three different types of infiltration areas in addition to the default paved area, and three detected leaking storm drains and other underground utilities. (B) Evidence of ruptured concrete pipes observed in the field.

View larger version (86K): [in a new window]   Fig. 7. Contour of the log measured hydraulic conductivity in the Moraga unit with the original measured values, and eight rock zones defined.

View larger version (23K): [in a new window]   Fig. 8. A sample geologic log showing thin layers of high hydraulic conductivity, fine- to medium-grained sandstone layer at depth of 8.5 m (28 feet) from the ground surface, within bedrock of low hydraulic conductivity.

View larger version (40K): [in a new window]   Fig. 9. Calibrated hydraulic conductivity vs. its prior value, and measured hydraulic conductivities for each of the 17 defined rock zones.

View larger version (47K): [in a new window]   Fig. 10. Simulated groundwater level contours and flow velocity fields on the water table in (a) August 1997 (dry season) and (b) March 1998 (wet season).

View larger version (59K): [in a new window]   Fig. 11. Comparison of the measured and predicted water level at a representative well in each of the four groundwater subsystems with the top of each hydrogeologic unit shown by horizontal lines.

View larger version (31K): [in a new window]   Fig. 12. Comparison of predicted water flow rate at the B46 boundary group and measured flow rate at the B46 trench.

View larger version (60K): [in a new window]   Fig. 13. Trajectories of particles originating from contaminant plumes using steady-state flow in August 1997 (blue lines) and March 1998 (red lines).

View larger version (81K): [in a new window]   Fig. 14. Boundary and plan view of the three-dimensional mesh for the refined model, with four trenches implemented for restoration. The background is the measured concentration contour with the contour legend shown in Fig. 13. The right upper-corner plot shows a close-up view of the sump and the B7 trench system for controlling the contaminant source.

View larger version (45K): [in a new window]   Fig. 15. Contour of the predicted groundwater level (light lines) and flow velocity vector fields on the water table in October 1999 for the refined model in (a) the entire model domain, (b) in the vicinity of the B7 trench, and (c) in the vicinity of the B53-B58 trench. Note that the contaminant plume contour lines are indicated by thick lines (for scales, see Fig. 13).