m |
m |
||
Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
*Low aquifer thickness. Groundwater aquifers that are thick are able to dissipate infiltrating water. Alternatively, aquifers with low thickness are less able to dissipate the water. The maximum height of a mound tends to decrease as the thickness of the aquifer increases (Carleton, 2010). | *Low aquifer thickness. Groundwater aquifers that are thick are able to dissipate infiltrating water. Alternatively, aquifers with low thickness are less able to dissipate the water. The maximum height of a mound tends to decrease as the thickness of the aquifer increases (Carleton, 2010). | ||
*Large and/or non-rectangular basin. Under the same conditions, circular, hexagonal and triangular basins have been found to have higher groundwater mound than rectangular basins (Domey, 2006). | *Large and/or non-rectangular basin. Under the same conditions, circular, hexagonal and triangular basins have been found to have higher groundwater mound than rectangular basins (Domey, 2006). | ||
− | *Close | + | *Close proximity to a polluted site. If a mound on one site extends to an adjacent property it will raise the groundwater elevation at that property. This is of particular concern if the adjacent site is contaminated since the mound could facilitate the movement of the contaminant plume (Nimmer et al., 2010). |
*Close Proximity to a Building or Structure or Underground Utility. When infiltration basins are just vertically above or within 10 horizontal feet of a building, structure, or underground utility, a mounding analysis should be conducted. | *Close Proximity to a Building or Structure or Underground Utility. When infiltration basins are just vertically above or within 10 horizontal feet of a building, structure, or underground utility, a mounding analysis should be conducted. | ||
− | *Close Proximity to Other Infiltration BMPs. The presence of multiple BMPs can compound the effect of mounding (Maimone et al., 2011). For example, a study in Syracuse, New York modeled the impact of multiple infiltration BMPs and found that there was the potential for a 0.2 to 0.7 meter mound to form due to close proximity. The height depended on the arrangement of the basins and the soil characteristics. | + | *Close Proximity to Other Infiltration BMPs. The presence of multiple BMPs can compound the effect of mounding (Maimone et al., 2011). For example, a study in Syracuse, New York modeled the impact of multiple infiltration BMPs and found that there was the potential for a 0.2 to 0.7 meter mound to form due to close proximity. The height depended on the arrangement of the basins and the soil characteristics. |
==How to Predict the Extent of a Mound== | ==How to Predict the Extent of a Mound== |
The localized groundwater surface may temporarily rise below an infiltration BMP, creating a condition termed groundwater mounding. Mounding can occur in areas where the volume of water entering the subsurface is greater than the soil is able to convey away (Susilo, 2009). Infiltration BMPs in particular have the potential to cause a groundwater mound, given the right subsurface conditions, because they direct the recharge to a specific area (Machusick and Traver, 2009).
The vadose zone is the unsaturated depth of in-situ (existing) soil below the infiltration BMP. Contaminants that are not captured within the BMP may be attenuated within this zone. The temporary rise of the groundwater elevation caused by mounding will decrease the available vadose zone which may decrease the removal of certain pollutants. If the mound reaches the base of the infiltration BMP, then the hydraulic gradient (direction of water movement) shifts from vertical to horizontal and significantly slows the movement of water through the soil. Groundwater mounds that significantly widen below the base of an infiltration BMP may damage underground utilities, basements and building structures if the mounds are high enough and there is not enough separation between the mound and structures (Machusick and Traver, 2009).
A mounding analysis is a way to determine the likelihood that a groundwater mound will occur. A mounding analysis should be performed if one or more of the following conditions exist:
Both analytical and numerical methods exist that can predict the extent of a groundwater mound. The most widely known and accepted analytical method is based on the work by Hantush (1967). A simple Excel spreadsheet of the Hantush Method was created by the USGS. This method requires the user to input information on the recharge rate, specific yield, horizontal hydraulic conductivity, dimensions of the infiltration BMP, and the initial thickness of the unsaturated zone. The result is considered by experts to be a simplified version of the actual site conditions. The Hantush method can be limited by the assumptions which include no storage loss, uniform and horizontal infiltration, and vertical sides to the BMP. If these assumptions are violated then a more robust numerical method should be used.
A common numerical method is to model site conditions using computer simulations. MODFLOW is the most widely used among the many programs that exist. While numerical modeling can provide a more accurate representation of site conditions, it also requires the user to have considerable training in order to develop the model and run simulations, and interpret the results.