Limitations of ROI testing for venting design: Description of an alternative approach based on attainment of a critical pore-gas velocity in contaminated media

Dominic C. Digiulio, Ravi Varadhan

Research output: Contribution to journalReview articlepeer-review

8 Scopus citations

Abstract

We utilize data from a Superfund site where radius of influence (ROI) testing was conducted in support of a venting design to describe limitations of ROI evaluation in more detail than has been done previously, and to propose an alternative method of design based on specification and attainment of a critical pore-gas velocity in contaminated subsurface media. Since accurate gas permeability estimation is critical to pore-gas velocity computation, we assess the usefulness of ROI testing data on estimation of radial permeability, vertical permeability, and leakance. We apply information from published studies on rate-limited vapor transport to provide the basis for selection of a critical design pore-gas velocity for soils at this site. Using single-well gas flow simulations, we evaluate whether this critical pore-gas velocity was achieved at measured ROIs. We then conduct a series of multi-well gas flow simulations to assess how variation in anisotropy and leakance affect three-dimensional vacuum and pore-gas velocity profiles and determination of an ROI. Finally, when attempting to achieve a critical design pore-gas velocity we evaluate whether it is more efficient to install additional wells or pump existing wells at a higher flow rate.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)97-114
Number of pages18
JournalGround Water Monitoring and Remediation
Volume21
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - 2001

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Civil and Structural Engineering
  • Water Science and Technology

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Limitations of ROI testing for venting design: Description of an alternative approach based on attainment of a critical pore-gas velocity in contaminated media'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this