EPA Clu-In 8/27/08
ESTCP
Using the High-Resolution Piezocone to Determine Hydraulic Parameters
and Mass Flux Distribution
Dr. Mark Kram, GroundswellDr. Norm Jones, BYUJessica Chau, UConn
Dr. Gary Robbins, UConnDr. Amvrossios Bagtzoglou, UConn
Thomas D. Dalzell, AMS
EPA Clu-In Internet Seminar27 August 2008
1
EPA Clu-In 082708
TECHNICAL OBJECTIVES
• Demonstrate Use of High-Resolution Piezocone to Determine Direction and Rate of GW Flow in 3-D
– Compare with Traditional Methods– Develop Models and Predict Plume Behavior
• Integrate High-Resolution Piezocone and Concentration Data into 3-D Flux Distributions via GMS Upgrades
• Introduce New Remediation Performance Monitoring Concept
2
EPA Clu-In 082708
TECHNOLOGY DESCRIPTION
High-Resolution Piezocone:
• Direct-Push (DP) Sensor Probe that ConvertsPore Pressure to Water Level or Hydraulic Head
• Head Values to ± 0.08ft (to >60’ below w.t.)
• Can Measure Vertical Gradients
• Simultaneously Collect Soil Type and K
• K from Pressure Dissipation, Soil Type
• Minimal Worker Exposure to Contaminants
• System Installed on PWC San Diego SCAPS
• Licensed to AMS
Custom Transducer
3
EPA Clu-In 082708
SEEPAGE VELOCITY AND FLUX
Seepage velocity ():
Ki where: K = hydraulic conductivity (Piezocone)
= ------ (length/time) i = hydraulic gradient (Piezocone)
= effective porosity (Piezocone/Soil)
Contaminant flux (F): F = [X] where: = seepage velocity
(length/time; m/s)
(mass/length2-time; mg/m2-s) [X] = concentration of solute (MIP, etc.) (mass/volume; mg/m3)
4
EPA Clu-In 082708
CONCENTRATION VS. FLUX
Most contaminated
Least contaminated
Source Zone
ControlPlane
B
A’
A
B’
ContaminantFlux (Jc)
Most contaminated
Least contaminated
Source Zone
ControlPlane
B
A’
A
B’
ContaminantFlux (Jc)
Length F,
5
EPA Clu-In 082708
CONCENTRATION VS. FLUX
Most contaminated
Least contaminated
Source Zone
ControlPlane
B
A’
A
B’
ContaminantFlux (Jc)
Most contaminated
Least contaminated
Source Zone
ControlPlane
B
A’
A
B’
ContaminantFlux (Jc)
High Concentration High Risk!!Hydraulic Component - Piezocone
Length F,
6
EPA Clu-In 082708
GMS MODIFICATIONS
Gradient, Velocity and Flux Calculations
Convert Scalar Head to Gradient [Key Step!]
7
EPA Clu-In 082708
GMS MODIFICATIONS
Gradient, Velocity and Flux Calculations
Convert Scalar Head to Gradient [Key Step!]
8
EPA Clu-In 082708
GMS MODIFICATIONS
Gradient, Velocity and Flux Calculations
Convert Scalar Head to Gradient [Key Step!] Merging of 3-D Distributions to Solve for Velocity Merging of Velocity and Concentration (MIP or Samples) Distributions to Solve for Contaminant Flux
9
EPA Clu-In 082708
APPROACH
• Test Cell Orientation Initial pushes for well design; Well design and prelim. installations, gradient determination; Initial CaCl2 tracer tests with geophysics (time-lapse resistivity) to determine general flow direction
• Field Installations (Clustered Wells)
• Survey (Lat/Long/Elevation)
• Pneumatic and Conventional Slug Tests (“K – Field”) Modified Geoprobe test system
• Water Levels (“Conventional” 3-D Head and Gradient)
• HR Piezocone Pushes (K, head, eff. porosity)
• GMS Interpolations (, F), Modeling and Comparisons
10
EPA Clu-In 082708
CPT-BASED WELL DESIGN
Candidate ScreenZone
Kram and Farrar Well Design Method11
EPA Clu-In 082708
DEMONSTRATION CONFIGURATION
Configuration via Dispersive Model
Utility PoleUtility Shed
Water Storage Tanks
20’
Veh
icle
Gat
e
20’
Veh
icle
Gat
e
4’ P
erso
nn
el
Gat
e100’
60’
Note: Layout displayed with 10’ x 10’ grid
W-3
W-2
W-1
2” Wells from EPA extraction system
1” EPA Hydraulic Test Wells
2” GeoVIS Monitoring Wells
Well cluster: ¾” Deep, Mid & Shallow Piezometers
1
4
3
2
9
5
8
7
6 10
13
12
11
13 Well Clusters, each cluster with a: Shallow Piezometer (8-8.5 ft Screens)Mid Piezometer (10.5-11.0 ft Screens)Deep Piezometer (13.5-14.0 ft Screens)
Clusters set on a 5ft x 5ft grid
5”
5”
Azimuth 234 o
piezometer
N
Utility PoleUtility Shed
Water Storage Tanks
20’
Veh
icle
Gat
e
20’
Veh
icle
Gat
e
4’ P
erso
nn
el
Gat
e100’100’
60’
Note: Layout displayed with 10’ x 10’ grid
W-3
W-2
W-1
2” Wells from EPA extraction system
1” EPA Hydraulic Test Wells
2” GeoVIS Monitoring Wells
Well cluster: ¾” Deep, Mid & Shallow Piezometers
2” Wells from EPA extraction system
1” EPA Hydraulic Test Wells
2” GeoVIS Monitoring Wells
Well cluster: ¾” Deep, Mid & Shallow Piezometers
1
4
3
2
9
5
8
7
6 10
13
12
11
1
4
3
2
1
4
3
2
9
5
8
7
6
9
5
8
7
6 10
13
12
11
10
13
12
11
13 Well Clusters, each cluster with a: Shallow Piezometer (8-8.5 ft Screens)Mid Piezometer (10.5-11.0 ft Screens)Deep Piezometer (13.5-14.0 ft Screens)
Clusters set on a 5ft x 5ft grid
5”5”
5”5”
Azimuth 234 o
piezometer
NN12
EPA Clu-In 082708
FIELD EFFORTS
Site Characterization with High Resolution Piezocone 11/22/04
Well Development & Hydraulic Test 8/24/05
Installation ¾” Wells 7/28/05
1st Wells 12/9/04
Field Demo 6/13/06
13
EPA Clu-In 082708
PIEZOCONE OUTPUT
14
EPA Clu-In 082708
HIGH RESOLUTION PIEZOCONETESTS (6/13/06)
Head Values for Piezocone
Displays shallow gradient
W1
W3W2
15
EPA Clu-In 082708
HEAD DETERMINATION(3-D Interpolations)
• Shallow gradient (5.49-5.41’; 5.45-5.38’ range in clusters over 25’)
• In practice, resolution exceptional (larger push spacing)
Piezo Wells
16
EPA Clu-In 082708
COMPARISON OF ALL K VALUES
• Kmean and Klc values within about a factor of 2 of Kwell values;
• Kmin, Kmax and Kform values typically fall within factor of 5 or better of the Kwell values; • K values derived from piezocone pushes ranged much more widely than those derived from slug tests conducted in adjacent monitoring wells; • Differences may be attributed to averaging of hydraulic conductivity values over the well screen versus more depth discrete determinations from the piezocone (e.g., more sensitive to vertical heterogeneities).
17
EPA Clu-In 082708
K BASED ON WELLS AND PROBE(Mid Zone Interpolations)
N
Well K Lookup K
Mean KK Max K Min
18
EPA Clu-In 082708
VELOCITY DETERMINATION(cm/s)
Well Piezo (mean K)
mid
1st row
centerline
19
EPA Clu-In 082708
FLUX DETERMINATION(Day 49 Projection)
Well Piezo (mean K)
mid
1st row
centerline ug/ft2-day
20
EPA Clu-In 082708
Scenario Head K Porosity
1 Well Well Average 2a SCAPS SCAPS Kmean SCAPS 2b SCAPS SCAPS Kmin SCAPS 2c SCAPS SCAPS Kmax SCAPS 2d SCAPS SCAPS Klookup SCAPS 3 Well Well SCAPS
4a Well SCAPS Kmean SCAPS 4b Well SCAPS Kmin SCAPS 4c Well SCAPS Kmax SCAPS 4d Well SCAPS Klookup SCAPS 5 Unif. grad. Average Average
MODELINGConcentration and Flux
21
EPA Clu-In 082708
Scenario Head K Porosity
1 Well Well Average 2a SCAPS SCAPS Kmean SCAPS 2b SCAPS SCAPS Kmin SCAPS 2c SCAPS SCAPS Kmax SCAPS 2d SCAPS SCAPS Klookup SCAPS 3 Well Well SCAPS
4a Well SCAPS Kmean SCAPS 4b Well SCAPS Kmin SCAPS 4c Well SCAPS Kmax SCAPS 4d Well SCAPS Klookup SCAPS 5 Unif. grad. Average Average
MODELINGConcentration and Flux
Well
Kmean
Klc
Ave K ug/ft2-day ppb
22
EPA Clu-In 082708
PERFORMANCE
Performance Summary.
Performance Criteria Expected Performance
Metric Results
Accuracy of high-resolution piezocone for determining head values, flow direction and gradients
± 0.08 ft head values Met Criteria
Hydraulic conductivity (dissipation or soil type correlation)
± 0.5 to 1 order of magnitude
Met Criteria
Transport model based on probes
Predicted breakthrough times and concentrations within one order of magnitude; probe based model efficiency accounts for more than 15% of the variance associated with well based models
Met Criteria
Time required for generation of 3-D conceptual and transport models
At least 50% reduction in time
Met Criteria
23
EPA Clu-In 082708
Cost Comparisons(Per Site)
$0
$50
$100
$150
$200
$250
$300
$350
20 50 75
Total Depth (ft)
$K
3/4" DP
2" DP
Drilled Wells
HR Piezocone
FLUX CHARACTERIZATIONCost Comparisons
“Apples to Apples” – HR Piez. with MIP vs. Wells, Aq. Tests, Samples10 Locations/30 Wells
24
EPA Clu-In 082708
Early Savings of ~$1.5M to $4.8M
High Res Piezocone Annual Savings - 20 Sites
(Relative to Alternatives)
$0
$1
$2
$3
$4
$5
$6
20 50 75
Total Depth (ft)
$M
3/4" DP
2" DP
Drilled
FLUX CHARACTERIZATIONCost Comparisons
25
EPA Clu-In 082708
“Apples to Apples” – HR Piez. with MIP vs. Wells, Aq. Tests, Samples10 Locations/30 Wells
FLUX CHARACTERIZATIONTime Comparisons
26
EPA Clu-In 082708
CONTAMINANT FLUX MONITORING STEPS(Remediation Design/Effectiveness)
• Generate Initial Model (Seepage Velocity, Concentration Distributions)
– Conventional Approaches– High-Resolution Piezocone/MIP
• Install Customized 3D Monitoring Well Network– ASTM– Kram and Farrar Method
• Monitor Water Level and Concentrations (Dynamic/Automate?)• Track Flux Distributions (3D, Transects)• Evaluate Remediation Effectiveness
– Plume Status (Stable, Contraction, etc.)– Remediation Metric– Regulatory Metric?
27
EPA Clu-In 082708
Future Conceptualization
28
EPA Clu-In 082708
Future Conceptualization
29
EPA Clu-In 082708
Future Conceptualization
30
EPA Clu-In 082708
Future Conceptualization
31
EPA Clu-In 082708
FUTURE PLANS
Tech Transfer– Army (Fall ‘08)– Industry Licensing (AMS in Summer ’07; Market Ready by December
‘08)– ITRC Tech Reg– ASTM D6067
Final Reports – Released (May ’08)– Clu-In: http://www.clu-in.org/s.focus/c/pub/i/1558/
32
EPA Clu-In 082708
CONCLUSIONS
• High-Res Piezocone Preliminary Results Demonstrate Good Agreement with Short-Screened Well Data
• Highly Resolved 2D and 3D Distributions of Head, Gradient, K, Effective Porosity, and Seepage Velocity Now Possible Using HRP and GMS
• When Know Concentration Distribution, 3D Distributions of Contaminant Flux Possible Using HRP with GMS
• Exceptional Capabilities for Plume “Architecture” and Monitoring Network Design
• Remediation Performance Monitoring Potential
• Significant Cost/Time Saving Potential
33
EPA Clu-In 082708
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
SERDP – Funded Advanced Fuel Hydrocarbon Remediation National Environmental Technology Test Site (NETTS)
ESTCP – Funded Demonstration
NAVFAC ESC – Manpower, oversight, matching efforts
Field and Technical Support – Project Advisory Committee Dorothy Cannon (NFESC)Jessica Chau (U. Conn.) Kenda Neil (NFESC)Gary Robbins (U. Conn.) Richard Wong (Shaw I&E)Ross Bagtzoglou (U. Conn.) Dale Lorenzana (GD) Merideth Metcalf (U. Conn.) Kent Cordry (GeoInsight)Tim Shields (R. Brady & Assoc.) Ian Stewart (NFESC)Craig Haverstick (R. Brady & Assoc.) Alan Vancil (SWDIV)Fred Essig (R. Brady & Assoc.) Dan Eng (US Army)Jerome Fee (Fee & Assoc.)Dr. Lanbo Liu and Ben Cagle (U. Conn.)
34
EPA Clu-In 082708
THANK YOU!
For More Info:
Mark Kram, Ph.D. (Groundswell)805-844-6854
Tom Dalzell (AMS)208-408-1612
EPA Clu-In 082708
After viewing the links to additional resources, please complete our online feedback form.
Thank You
Links to Additional ResourcesLinks to Additional Resources
Feedback FormFeedback Form
36