Yenigul, N.B., Elfeki, A. M. and den Akker, C. (2006). New Approach for Groundwater Detection Monitoring at Landfills. Journal of Groundwater Monitoring and Remediation, 26, no. 2/Spring 2006/pp. 79-86.

1. NEW APPROACH FOR
GROUNDWATER DETECTION
MONITORING AT LINED LANDFILLS
N. Buket YENiGüL1,a, Amro M.M. ELFEKI 2,c and Cees van den AKKER 1,b
1 Faculty of Civil Engineering and Geosciences, Water Resources Section, TU
Delft, P.O. Box 5048, 2600 GA Delft, The Netherlands. Fax:+31-15-2785915
a Corresponding author. e- mail address: n.b.yenigul@citg.tudelft.nl
b e- mail address: j.m.dejong@citg.tudelft.nl
2Department of Hydrology and Water Resources Management, Faculty of
Meteorology, Environment and Arid Land Agriculture, King Abdulaziz
University, P.O. Box 80208, Jeddah 21589, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
e-mail address: aelfeki@kaau.edu.sa
c On leave from Irrigation and Hydraulics Dept., Faculty of Engneering,
Mansoura University, Mansoura, Egypt.

6. 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
-400
-350
-300
-250
-200
-150
-100
-50
0
100
50
0
150
200
250
300
350
400
Flow
Landfill
(m)
(m)
3-wellsystem
4-wellsystem
5-wellsystem
6-wellsystem
8-wellsystem
12-wellsystem

7. System reliability as a function of distance from the source
for selected monitoring systems for conventional monitoring
approach:
(a) homogenous medium, and (b) heterogeneous medium.
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220 230
Distance from the contaminant source (m)
(a)
Detectionprobability(Pd)
3-well system
6-well system
12-well system
T = 0.01 m T = 0.03 m
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220 230
Distance from the contaminant source (m)
(b)
Detectionprobability(Pd)
3-well system
6-well system
12-well system
T = 0.01 m T = 0.03 m

8. Average contaminated area as a function of distance from
the source for selected monitoring systems for conventional
monitoring approach:
(a) homogenous medium and (b) heterogeneous medium.
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220 230
distance from the contaminant source (m)
(a)
Averagecontaminatedarea(Aav)x10
4
(m
2
)
3-well system
12-well system
T = 0.01 m T = 0.03 m
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220 230
distance from the contaminant source (m)
(b)
Averagecontaminatedarea(Aav)x10
4
(m
2
)
3-well system
12-well system
T = 0.01 m T = 0.03 m

9. System reliability as a function of distance from the source
for a 3-well monitoring system for the proposed monitoring
approach (pumping rate is 100 l/day).
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220 230
Distance from the contaminant source (m)
Detectionprobability(Pd)
homogenous case,
homogenous case,
heterogeneous case,
heterogeneous case,
T=0.01 m
T=0.03 m
T=0.01 m
T=0.03 m

10. Average contaminated area as a function of distance from
the source for a 3-well monitoring system for the proposed
monitoring approach (pumping rate is 100 l/day).
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220 230
Distance from the contaminant source (m)
Averagecontaminatedarea(Aav)x104
(m2
)
homogenous case,
homogenous case,
heterogeneous case,
heterogeneous case,
T=0.01 m
T=0.03 m
T=0.01 m
T=0.03 m

11. Influence of the pumping rate on (a) detection probability
of a 3-well system
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
Homogenous medium
aT=0.01 m
Homogenous medium
aT=0.03 m
Heterogeneous medium
aT=0.01 m
Heterogeneous medium
aT=0.03 m
(a)
Detectionprobability(Pd)
estimated minimum
estimated maximum
estimated optimal
100 l/day50 l/daypumping rate =

12. Influence of the pumping rate on (b) average
contaminated area.
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
Homogenous medium
aT=0.01 m
Homogenous medium
aT=0.03 m
Heterogeneous medium
aT=0.01 m
Heterogeneous medium
aT=0.03 m
(b)
Averagecontaminatedarea(Aav)x104
(m2
)
estimated minimum
estimated maximum
100 l/day50 l/daypumping rate =

13. Comparison of the conventional and the proposed
monitoring approaches (pumping rate = 100 l/day) in terms
of reliability “in heterogeneous medium”:
(a) transverse dispersivity, T = 0.01 m, and
(b) transverse dispersivity, T = 0.03 m.
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Number of wells in the monitoring system
(a)
Detectionprobability(Pd)
estimated minimum
estimated maximum
estimated optimal
proposed
monitoring
approach
conventional
monitoring
approach
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Number of wells in the monitoring system
(b)
Detectionprobability(Pd)
estimated minimum
estimated maximum
estimated optimal
proposed
monitoring
approach
conventional
monitoring
approach

14. Comparison of the conventional and the proposed
monitoring approaches (pumping rate = 100 l/day) in terms
of the average contaminated area “in homogenous
medium”:
(a) transverse dispersivity, T = 0.01 m and
(b) transverse dispersivity, T = 0.03 m.
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Number of wells in the monitoring system
(a)
Detectionprobability(Pd)
estimated minimum
estimated maximum
estimated optimal
proposed
monitoring
approach
conventional
monitoring
approach
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Number of wells in the monitoring system
Detectionprobability(Pd)
estimated minimum
estimated maximum
estimated optimal
proposed
monitoring
approach
conventional
monitoring
approach

15. Comparison of the conventional and the proposed
monitoring approaches (pumping rate = 100 l/day) in terms
of the average contaminated area “in homogenous
medium”: (a) transverse dispersivity, T = 0.01 m and (b)
transverse dispersivity, T = 0.03 m.
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Number of wells in the monitoring system
(a)
Detectionprobability(Pd)
estimated minimum
estimated maximum
estimated optimal
proposed
monitoring
approach
conventional
monitoring
approach
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Number of wells in the monitoring system
Detectionprobability(Pd)
estimated minimum
estimated maximum
estimated optimal
proposed
monitoring
approach
conventional
monitoring
approach

16. Comparison of the conventional and the proposed
monitoring approaches (pumping rate = 100 l/day) in terms
of the average contaminated area “in heterogeneous
medium”: (a) transverse dispersivity, T = 0.01 m and (b)
transverse dispersivity, T = 0.03 m.
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Number of wells in the monitoring system
(a)
Averagecontaminatedarea(Aav)x10
4
(m
2
)
estimated maximum
estimated minimum
proposed
monitoring
approach
conventional
monitoring
approach
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Number of wells in the monitoring system
(b)
Averagecontaminatedarea(Aav)x10
4
(m
2
)
estimated maximum
estimated minimum
proposed
monitoring
approach
conventional
monitoring
approach

17. 0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Number of wells in the monitoring system
(a)
Averagecontaminatedarea(Aav)x10
4
(m
2
)
estimated maximum
estimated minimum
proposed
monitoring
approach
conventional
monitoring
approach
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Number of wells in the monitoring system
(b)
Averagecontaminatedarea(Aav)x10
4
(m
2
)
estimated maximum
estimated minimum
proposed
monitoring
approach
conventional
monitoring
approach

18. Expected cost as a function of number of wells in a
monitoring system for transverse dispersivity, T = 0.03 m:
(a) homogenous medium and (b) heterogeneous medium.
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
3-well
monitoring
system
4-well
monitoring
system
5-well
monitoring
system
6-well
monitoring
system
8-well
monitoring
system
12-well
monitoring
system
(a)
Expectedtotalcost(CT)x10
5
(dollars)
conventional monitoring approach
proposed monitoring approach
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
3-well
monitoring
system
4-well
monitoring
system
5-well
monitoring
system
6-well
monitoring
system
8-well
monitoring
system
12-well
monitoring
system
Expectedtotalcost(CT)x10
5
(dollars)
conventional monitoring approach
proposed monitoring approach