| Figure 2.1.1 |
Subsurface Processes |
| Figure 3.2.1 |
Standard Operator-Splitting Procedure |
| Figure 3.2.2 |
Operator-Splitting Procedure modified by Kinzelbach and Schäfer. |
| Figure 3.2.3 |
Integrated Operator-Splitting Procedure |
| Figure 3.3.1 |
Illustration of a 5 x 4 Aquifer Mesh |
| Figure 3.5.1 |
Node layout for computing solute flux |
| Figure 3.8.1 |
Unstable Time Oscillations |
| Figure 3.8.2 |
Stable Space Oscillations |
| Figure 3.8.3 |
Maximum and Minimum Courant Number Criteria for one-dimensional
Simulations |
| Figure 4.4.1 |
Log RSSE Contours as a Function of Pe and Co for One-Dimensional
Conservative Solute Transport with Continuous Source |
| Figure 4.4.2 |
One-Dimensional Conservative Solute Transport with Continuous Source, Pe
= 2.5, Co = 0.36, RSSE = 1.0 x 10-5 |
| Figure 4.4.3 |
One-Dimensional Conservative Solute Transport with Continuous Source, Pe
= 250, Co = 0.36, RSSE = 1.2 |
| Figure 4.4.4 |
One-Dimensional Conservative Solute Transport with Continuous Source, Pe
= 250, Co = 0.995, RSSE = 1.1 x 10-2 |
| Figure 4.5.1 |
Log RSSE Contours as a Function of Pe and Co for One-Dimensional
Conservative Solute Transport with a Pulse Source |
| Figure 4.5.2 |
One-Dimensional Conservative Solute Transport with a Pulse Source, Pe =
2.5, Co = 0.36, RSSE = 2.6 x 10-5 |
| Figure 4.5.3 |
One-Dimensional Conservative Solute Transport with a Pulse Source, Pe =
250, Co = 0.36, RSSE = 1.4 |
| Figure 4.5.4 |
One-Dimensional Conservative Solute Transport with a Pulse Source, Pe =
250, Co = 0.995, RSSE = 7.3 x 10-4 |
| Figure 4.6.1 |
Two-Dimensional Conservative Solute Transport with a Pulse Source,
Cross-sectional Profiles at a Relative Distance of Y = 0.50 Pe = 0.5, Co = 0.082, a l/a t = 10, Flow
Angle = 30º |
| Figure 4.6.2 |
Two-Dimensional Conservative Solute Transport with a Pulse Source,
Cross-sectional Profiles at a Relative Distance of Y = 0.50 Pe = 0.5, Co = 0.082, a l/a t = 5, Flow
Angle = 30º |
| Figure 4.6.3 |
Two-Dimensional Conservative Solute Transport with a Pulse Source,
Cross-sectional Profiles at a Relative Distance of Y = 0.50 Pe = 0.1, Co = 0.049, a l/a t = 20.0, Flow
Angle = 30º |
| Figure 4.7.1 |
RSSE as a Function of Damkohler Number and Peclet Number (using the
Maximum Allowable Courant Number) for One-Dimensional Reactive Solute Transport with a
Continuous Source |
| Figure 4.7.2 |
One-Dimensional Reactive Solute Transport with Continuous Source, Pe =
0.2, Co = 0.099, Da = 0.001, RSSE = 4.02 x 10-4 |
| Figure 4.7.3 |
One-Dimensional Reactive Solute Transport with Continuous Source, Pe =
100, Co = 0.9905, Da = 1.0, RSSE = 1.14 x 10-1 |
| Figure 4.7.4 |
One-Dimensional Reactive Solute Transport with Continuous Source, Pe = 2,
Co = 0.618, Da = 0.1, RSSE = 5.7 x 10-3 |
| Figure 4.8.1 |
First Order Decay with Varying k |
| Figure 4.8.2 |
RSSE as a Function of First Order Decay Coefficient and Calculation
Timestep |
| Figure 4.8.3 |
Competitive Monod Decay k = 0.2, Ksa = 5.0, Ksd =
10.0, Yx = 0.5, YA = 1.0, YD = 2.5, Yi = 0.2. |
| Figure 4.8.4 |
Squared Relative Residual as a Function of Global Timestep for
Competitive Monod Decay. |
| Figure 4.9.1 |
Laboratory Column. |
| Figure 4.9.2 |
Concentration at outflow boundary for Stratified System. |
| Figure 4.10.1 |
Schematic representation of the test zone used in biostimulation
experiments. |
| Figure 4.10.2 |
Experimental (symbols) and modeled (lines, this model) breakthrough
curves of methane and oxygen at observation well S2, 2.2 m from injection well SI, (Figure
4 in literature). |
| Figure 4.10.3 |
Modeled biomass profiles computed by Semprini and McCarty (symbols) and
this model (lines), (Figure 5 in literature). |
| Figure 4.10.4 |
Experimental (symbols) and modeled (lines, this model) breakthrough
curves of methane and oxygen at observation at well S2 under alternative pulsing strategy
(Figure 7 in literature). |
| Figure 4.10.5 |
Modeled biomass concentrations computed by Semprini and McCarty (symbols)
and this model (lines) at well S2 (Figure 8 in literature). |
| Figure 5.2.1 |
TCE Spill Site. |
| Figure 5.3.1 |
No Action Aquifer System Layout |
| Figure 5.3.2 |
No Action TCE Border Concentration using Kinetic and Equilibrium Sorption
|
| Figure 5.3.3 |
No Action TCE Border Concentration with different dissolution rates |
| Figure 5.3.4 |
No Action TCE Border Concentration using different grid spacing |
| Figure 5.3.5 |
No Action Distribution of Mass |
| Figure 5.4.1 |
Pump and Treat Aquifer System Layout |
| Figure 5.4.2 |
Pump and Treat vs. No-Action Aqueous TCE Boundary Concentration |
| Figure 5.4.3 |
Pump and Treat Mass Distribution |
| Figure 5.5.1 |
Pump and Treat with Biodegradation Aquifer System Layout |
| Figure 5.5.2 |
Pump and Treat boundary TCE concentration with and without Biodegradation
|
| Figure 5.5.3 |
Pump and Treat with Biodegradation Mass Distribution |
| Figure 5.5.4 |
Distribution of Biomass and TCEaq after 7.8 years. |
| Figure 5.5.5 |
Distribution of Biomass, Oxygen, and Methane after 7.8 years. |
| Figure B.1 |
Comparison of IOS and OS Error as a Function of kD
t.. |
| Figure F.1 |
Single Monod Decay with Varying k, and Ks,. |
| Figure F.2 |
Squared Relative Residual as a Function of Single Monod Decay
Coefficients and Global Timestep. |
| Figure F.3 |
Double Monod Decay. k = 0.2, Ksa = 5.0, Ksd = 10.0,
Yx = 0.5, YA = 1.0, YD = 2.5. |
| Figure F.4 |
Squared Relative Residual as a Function Global Timestep for Double Monod
Reaction. |
| Figure F.5 |
Kinetic Linear Sorption, a = 0.1, Kd
= 2.0. |
| Figure F.6 |
Squared Relative Residual as a Function of Global Timestep for Kinetic
Linear Sorption. |
| Figure F.7 |
Kinetic Langmuir Sorption, a = 0.1, k1 =
8.0, k2 = 1.0. |
| Figure F.8 |
Squared Relative Residual as a Function of Global Timestep for Kinetic
Langmuir Sorption. |
| Figure F.9 |
Kinetic Freundlich Sorption, a = 0.2, k =
2.0, n = 0.8. |
| Figure F.10 |
Squared Relative Residual as a Function of Global Timestep for Kinetic
Freundlich Sorption. |