BIOPLUME II
COMPUTER MODEL OF
TWO-DIMENSIONAL CONTAMINANT
TRANSPORT UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF
OXYGEN LIMITED BIODEGRADATION
IN GROUND WATER
USER'S MANUAL - VERSION 1.0
National Center for Ground Water Research
Rice University
P. O.Box1892
Houston, Texas 77251
October 1987
-------
Disclaimer
This is a scanned reproduction of the original document for distribution purposes via electronic
format. Effort has been made to provide an accurate and correct document. The document is
supplied "as-is" without guarantee or warranty, expressed or implied. A hard copy of the original
can be provided upon request.
Readme
The following will be consistent throughout the documents distributed by the Center for
Subsurface Modeling Support via Acrobat Reader:
Red text signifies a link.
Bookmarks have been developed and will vary from document to document and
will usually include table of contents, figures, and/or tables.
Most figures/graphics will be included at the end of the document.
-------
BIOPLUME II
by
Hanadi S. Rifai1
Philip B. Bedient1
Robert C. Borden2
John F. Haasbeek1
1 National Center for Ground Water Research
Rice University
P. 0. Box 1892
Houston, Texas
(713)527-4951
2North Carolina State University Department of Civil Engineering Box 7808
Raleigh, North Carolina 27695-7908
(919)737-2331
Cooperative Agreement No. CR-812808
Project Officer
John T. Wilson
Processes and Systems Research Division
Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory
Ada, Oklahoma 74820
ROBERT S. KERR ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
ADA, OKLAHOMA 74820
-------
BIOPLUME II Version 1.1
October 1989
Update Summary
The following are the main differences between version 1.0 and version 1.1:
1. The data input format for version 1.1 has been changed from fixed format to free format. Both the
preprocessor and the executable runtime modules accept input as free format. Users should be cautious
when attempting to modify or run a previously prepared file in fixed format.
2. Version 1.1 will allow the user to input the stoichiometric ratio, F, of oxygen to contaminant utilized
The parameter, F, is entered on card 4 as the last parameter on that card. The data to be specified on card
4 (Appendix A, page A-3) in version 1.1 are then:
DK
RHOB
THALF
DEC1
DEC2
F
It is noted that the value for F is not echoed in the output data set and the user needs to keep in mind
what value is being used for the runs in question
3. Some changes were implemented to the preprocessor to adjust some of the previous problems
reported by other users. These changes only enhance the preprocessor and do not affect the way the
preprocessor works
4. A status message screen has been included in the runtime module to inform the user of the
number of moves required to complete a simulation run. The status message screen informs the user of
the present move being computed. This addition should help users figure out whether there is a problem
with the input data and will give the user an idea of how long it will take to complete the run in question
5 The graphic output files generated during a computer run (see pages 3-10 to 3-12 in the manual) in
version 1.1 are generated with real numbers instead of integer values for the heads, oxygen
concentrations and contaminant concentrations. This allows the user to plot the model results more
accuratately.
-------
Acknowledgements
We would like to acknowledge the following people for their valuable assistance with this project:
The Robert S. Kerr Environmental Laboratory (RSKERL) of the U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency for providing us with the opportunity to develop
BIOPLUME II. In particular, we thank John T. Wilson, James F. McNabb, Marion
R. Scalf, Bert E. Bledsoe, and Don H. Kampbell.
L. F. Konikow and J. D. Bredehoeft for developing the USGS 2-D solute
transport model which provided the basis for our code.
Dr. John M. Armstrong of the Traverse Group, Inc. for providing valuable field
data from the Traverse City field site in Michigan for testing BIOPLUME II, and U.
S. Coast Guard Commander John H. Sammons for providing us with the
opportunity to work at the Traverse City field site.
Pamela J. Ross for providing her technical skills, time and effort in developing
this document. Jill A. Oglesby and Karen M. Miller for testing BIOPLUME II.
Charles J. Newell for his valuable advice throughout this project.
Disclaimer
The information in this document has been funded wholly or in part by the United States
Environmental Protection Agency under Cooperative Agreement No. CR-812808 to Rice
University. It has been subjected to the Agency's peer and administrative review, and it has been
approved for publication as an EPA document. Mention of trade names or commercial products
does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
-------
Foreword
EPA is charged by Congress to protect the Nation's land, air and water systems. Under a mandate of
national environmental laws focused on air and water quality, solid waste management and the control of
toxic substances, pesticides, noise and radiation, the Agency strives to formulate and implement actions
which lead to a compatible balance between human activities and the ability of natural systems to support
and nurture life.
The Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory is the Agency's center of expertise for
investigation of the soil and subsurface environment. Personnel at the Laboratory are responsible for
management of research programs to: (a) determine the fate, transport and transformation rates of
pollutants in the soil, the unsaturated and the saturated zones of the subsurface environment; (b) define the
processes to be used in characterizing the soil and subsurface environment as a receptor of pollutants; (c)
develop techniques for predicting the effect of pollutants on ground water, soil, and indigenous organisms;
and (d) define and demonstrate the applicability and limitations of using natural processes, indigenous to
the soil and subsurface environment, for the protection of this resource.
This project was initiated to provide a computer model that could be used to screen hazardous waste
sites and determine whether natural biological processes could be used to contain the spread of pollution,
or remediate the source of contamination. The computer model is designed to run on a personal computer
instead of a mainframe, which makes the model readily available to regional and state regulators.
Clinton W. Hall
Director
Roberts. Kerr Environmental
Research Laboratory
-------
System Requirements
To run BIOPLUME II, you need the following:
1. IBM PC/AT or compatible
2. DOS version 2.0 (or later)
3. 640K of machine resident memory (RAM)1
4. 80287 math co-processor chip
5. Hard disk2
Optional hardware includes:
6. Graphics adapter (CGA, EGA, or Hercules)3
7. SURFER suppported graphics printer or plotter
(see Appendix D of SURFER manual)
System Setup
In order to run the programs, the following command must be included in the file
CONFIG.SYS on your system disk:
DEVICE = ANSI.SYS
Note that the file ANSI.SYS, included with the DOS package, must reside in the same
directory as CONFIG.SYS. Otherwise a pathname must be included in the file. Please refer to
your DOS reference manual for details on this command.
1A minimum of 550K of RAM is necessary to load the model with the menu preprocessor. To
check available RAM, type the command CHKDSK. If there is less memory available, the model
(DRIVER.EXE) may still be loaded without the menu preprocessor. Please contact Rice University
if you have any questions.
2lt is possible to run the model using a high-density floppy drive if a hard disk is not available
in your system.
3 The VIEW program and the View option in TOPO and SURF both require a graphics card
(adapter). However, if your system does not have a graphics card, SURFER may still be used to
generate graphics on a graphics printer or plotter (Golden Software, Inc., 1987).
-------
Table of Contents
System Requirements vii
Table of Contents viii
Abstract xi
Introduction xii
1. Theoretical Background 1-1
1.1 Literature Review 1-1
1.1.1 Biodegradation Processes 1-1
1.1.2 In-Situ Biorestoration 1-1
1.1.3 Biodegradation Modeling 1-2
1.2 Model Development 1-4
1.2.1 Equation Formulation 1-4
1.2.2 One-Dimensional Simulations 1-5
1.2.3 Two-Dimensional Simulations 1-6
1.2.3.1 Vertical 2-D Simulations 1-6
1.2.3.2 Horizontal 2-D Simulations 1-7
2. Overview of the Model 2-1
2.1 Description of the Program 2-1
2.1.1 Incorporated Revisions of the USGS MOC Code 2-2
2.1.2 Code Verification 2-2
2.2 Program Capabilities 2-2
2.2.1 Simulation of Naturally Occurring Biodegradation 2-2
2.2.2 Simulation of In-Situ Biorestoration 2-3
2.3 Sensitivity Analysis 2-3
2.3.1 Variation of Concentrations with Hydraulic Conductivity 2-4
2.3.2 Variation of Concentrations with Retardation 2-4
2.3.3 Variation of Concentrations with Dispersivity 2-5
2.3.3.1 Longitudinal Dispersivity 2-5
2.3.3.2 Transverse Dispersivity 2-5
2.3.4 Variation of Concentrations with Porosity 2-5
2.3.5 Variation of Concentrations with Reaeration Coefficient 2-5
2.4 Model Output 2-5
2.5 Summary 2-6
-------
3. Use of the Preprocessor 3-1
3.1 Option 1: Edit/Create an Input Data File 3-1
3.1.1 Selection 1 - Editing an Existing Data File 3-2
3.1.2 Creating an Input File 3-3
3.1.3 Selection 2 - Card 1 3-3
3.1.4 Selection 3 - Card 2 3-3
3.1.5 Selection 4 - Card 3 3-3
3.1.6 Selection 5 - Card 4 3-3
3.1.7 Selection 6 - Data Set 1 3-3
3.1.8 Selection 7 - Data Set 2 3-4
3.1.9 Selection 8 - Data Set 3 3-4
3.1.1O Selection 9-Data Set 4 3-5
3.1.11 Selection 10-Data Set 5 3-5
3.1.12 Selection 11 - Data Set 6 3-5
3.1.13 Selection 12-Data Set 7 3-6
3.1.14 Selection 13-Data Set 8 3-7
3.1.15 Selection 14-Data Set 9 3-7
3.1.16 Selection 15-Data Set 10 3-7
3.1.17 Selection 16-Data Set 11 3-7
3.1.18 Selection 17-Write Data File 3-7
3.1.19 Selection 18-Quit 3-8
3.2 Option 2: Run BIOPLUME II 3-8
3.3 Option 3: Prepare Graphics Files 3-8
3.4 Option 4: QUIT 3-9
4. Test Problems 4-1
4.1 Test Problem # 1 - Natural Biodegradation 4-1
4.1.1 Description 4-1
4.1.2 Input Data 4-1
4.1.3 Output Data 4-2
4.2 Test Problem #2 - Natural Biodegradation with Reaeration 4-6
4.2.1 Description 4-6
4.2.2 Input Data 4-6
4.2.3 Output Data 4-6
4.3 Test Problem #3 - In-Situ Biorestoration 4-8
4.3.1 Description 4-8
4.3.2 Input Data 4-8
-------
4.3.3 Output Data 4-8
References 5-1
Appendix A: Data Input Formats A-1
Appendix B: Output Data for Test Problem #1 B-1
Appendix C: Selected Output for Test Problem #2 C-1
Appendix D: Selected Output for Test Problem #3 D-1
-------
List of Figures
1.1 Process Control Regions
2.1 Simplified Flow Chart of BIOPLUME II
2.2 Schematic of Plume
2.3 Concentration Distributions for Various Values of Hydraulic Conductivity
2.4a Variation of Biodegraded Mass with Various Parameters
2.4b Variation of Biodegraded Mass with Various Parameters
2.5 Concentration Distributions for Various Values of Retardation
2.6 Concentration Distributions for Various Values of Longitudinal Dispersivity
2.7 Variation of Biodegraded Mass with Dispersivity
2.8 Concentration Distributions for Various Values of Transverse Dispersivity
2.9 Concentration Distributions for Various Values of Porosity
2.10 Concentration Distributions for Various Values of the Reaeration Coefficient
4.1 Contaminant and Oxygen Plumes for Test Problem #1
4.2 Non-biodegraded Contaminant Plume for Test Problem #2
4.3 Contaminant Plumes for Test Problem #3
List of Tables
2.1 Percent Biodegraded Mass as a Function of the Retardation Factor (R)
-------
Abstract
This manual presents a two-dimensional computer model, BIOPLUME II, that simulates the transport
of dissolved hydrocarbons under the influence of oxygen-limited biodegradation. BIOPLUME II also
simulates reaeration and anaerobic biodegradation as a first order decay in hydrocarbon concentrations.
The model is based on the USGS solute transport two-dimensional code (Konikow and Bredehoeft,
1978). The model computes the changes in concentration overtime due to convection, dispersion, mixing,
and biodegradation. The same numerical techniques that are used in the USGS code are maintained in
BIOPLUME II.
BIOPLUME II solves the solute transport equation twice: once for hydrocarbon and once for oxygen.
As a result, two plumes are computed at every time step. The model assumes an instantaneous reaction
between oxygen and hydrocarbon to simulate biodegradation processes. The two plumes are combined
using the principle of superposition.
The model is extremely versatile in that it can be used to simulate natural biodegradation processes,
retarded plumes, and in-situ bio restoration schemes. BIOPLUME II allows injection wells to be specified as
oxygen sources into a contaminated aquifer. This means that alternate methods for aquifer reclamation
can be investigated to design the most economically feasible scheme.
The model provides three additional sources of oxygen into an aquifer: initial dissolved oxygen in the
uncontaminated aquifer, natural recharge of oxygen across the boundaries, and vertical exchange of
oxygen from the unsaturated zone (reaeration). All three sources of oxygen can be used to simulate a
contaminant plume that is being naturally biodegraded.
BIOPLUME II runs on an IBM PC/AT or compatible system. A menu-driven preprocessor was
developed to assist the user in applying the model. The preprocessor provides three options: data input or
data edit, performing a simulation run, and developing graphical output. A graphics software program,
SURFER, from Golden Software, Inc. (1987), was selected to provide the user with contour and surface
plots of hydrocarbon and oxygen concentrations and water table elevations.
-------
Introduction
This manual describes a computer model for simulating transport of hydrocarbons (HC) in ground
water under the influence of oxygen (O2) limited biodegradation. The model core is based on the USGS 2-
D solute transport model (Konikow and Bredehoeft, 1978). Although this manual is self-contained and will
allow the user to run BIOPLUME II easily, it is recommended that the user be familiar with the USGS code
beforehand. A user-friendly menu-driven preprocessor has been built in the code. The preprocessor
provides the user with three options: 1)data input/editing; 2) simulation run performance; and 3) graphical
representation of output. The model is designed to run on an IBM PC/AT or compatible system.
The purpose of the simulation model is to compute the concentration of a dissolved hydrocarbon that
is undergoing biodegradation in an aquifer. Changes in chemical concentration occur primarily due to four
distinct processes: 1) convective transport, in which dissolved chemicals are moving with the flowing
ground water; 2) hydrodynamic dispersion, in which molecular and ionic diffusion and small scale variations
in the velocity of flow through the porous media cause spreading of the contaminant front; 3) fluid sources
or sinks, such as pumping or injecting wells, and; 4) reactions, in which the concentration of the
contaminant may increase or decrease due to chemical and physical reactions within the ground water or
between the water and the solid aquifer material.
The standard 2-D USGS code assumes that no reactions occur which affect the concentration of the
species of interest. BIOPLUME II, on the other hand, assumes an instantaneous reaction between HC and
O2. The instantaneous reaction decreases the concentration of HC by an amount that is proportional to the
available O2 in the aquifer (it is assumed that 3 units of O2 are required to completely biodegrade 1 unit of
HC).
BIOPLUME II solves the solute transport equation twice, once for HC and once for O2. This allows the
simultaneous simulation of two plumes; an HC plume and an O2 plume. The two plumes are combined
using superposition at every particle move to simulate the reaction between HC and O2.
BIOPLUME II is extremely versatile: it allows the simulation of a retarded HC plume undergoing
biodegradation and it provides the user with the capability to simulate in-situ bio restoration schemes such
as the injection of oxygenated water. Moreover, the model simulates anaerobic biodegradation and
reaeration as a first order decay in HC concentrations.
-------
1. Theoretical Background
1.1 Literature Review
1.1.1 Biodegradation Processes
Recent studies have indicated that many subsurface microorganisms are metabolically active and are
able to degrade a wide variety of contaminants. Ghiorse and Balkwill (1983, 1985) observed population
densities of approximately 106 cells per gram aquifer material at sites in Louisiana and Oklahoma using
epifluorescent microscopy.
The microorganisms present appear to be predominantly bacteria (Hirsh and Rades-Rohkohl, 1983),
but a few higher life forms have been detected (Wilson et al., 1983; Ghiorse and Balkwill, 1985; White et al.,
1983). Some eucaryotic forms which may be fungal spores or yeast cells have been observed in the upper
10 m of a soil profile (Ghiorse and Balkwill, 1983; Federle et al., 1986).
There are many environmental factors which limit the biodegradation of subsurface organic pollutants,
even in the presence of adapted microorganisms (Thomas et al., 1987). These factors include the lack of
an essential nutrient, substrate concentration, substrate inaccessibility, and the presence of toxicants
(Alexander, 1975). The transport of contaminants in the subsurface also affects biodegradation.
Biodegradation of many organic pollutants in the subsurface may be limited by insufficient oxygen. Lee
and Ward (1985) found that the rate and extent of biotransformation of naphthalene, 2-methyl naphthalene,
dibenzofuran, fluorene, and phenanthrene were greater in oxygenated water than in oxygen-depleted
water.
Recent research has also indicated that biodegradation can occur under anaerobic conditions. Kuhn
et al. (1985) reported mineralization ofxylenes in samples of river alluvium under denitrifying conditions. In
addition, benzene, toluene, xylenes, and other alkylbenzenes were metabolized in methanogenic river
alluvium that had been contaminated with landfill leachate (Wilson and Rees, 1986).
In addition to oxygen, other nutrients may limit the biodegradation of organic pollutants in the
subsurface. Inorganic nutrients, such as nitrogen and phosphorous, may be limiting when the ratios of
carbon to nitrogen or phosphorous exceed that necessary for microbial processes (Thomas et al., 1987).
Also, the presence of sulfate may inhibit methanogenic bacteria that have been reported to dehalogenate
and mineralize many chlorinated aromatic compounds (Suflita and Gibson, 1985; Suflita and Miller, 1985).
1.1.2 In-Situ Biorestoration
Microbial processes may be used to degrade contaminants in-situ by stimulating the native microbial
population (Thomas et al., 1987). Addition of electron acceptors, such as oxygen, and inorganic nutrients,
typically nitrogen, phosphorous, and trace metals may provide the microorganisms with essential nutrients
that are limiting in the presence of high concentrations of pollutants (Thomas et al., 1987).
Inoculation of a specialized microbial population and the addition of surfactants to increase the
availability of contaminants to the microorganisms can also be used. In general, biological processes, when
possible, may offer the advantage of partial or complete removal of the contaminants rather than simply
transferring the pollutants to another phase in the environment (Thomas et al., 1987).
The application of in-situ bio restoration technology to site remediation is relatively new. Raymond
(1974) received a patent on a process designed to remove hydrocarbon contaminants from ground water
by stimulating the indigenous microbial population with nutrients and oxygen. The process was applied at a
1-1
-------
site in Ambler, Pennsylvania where a pipe line leak had introduced an estimated 380,000 liters of high
octane gasoline into the underlying aquifer.
Approximately two-thirds of the gasoline was recovered using conventional pump/treat systems,
however, the time estimated for complete restoration using these systems was more than 100 years. A
nutrient amendment scheme was implemented at the site. The nutrients added were oxygen, ammonium
sulfate, disodium phosphate, and monosodium phosphate. During the period of nutrient addition, the
concentration of gasoline in the ground water did not decline, however, ten months later gasoline could not
be detected in the ground water (Raymond et al., 1975).
There are many methods of introducing oxygen into contaminated aquifers. Brown et al. (1985) used
air sparging at a gasoline contamination site. Wilson and Ward (1987) have suggested other methods,
such as soil venting or air flooding. The problem that one faces is that these methods can only provide
dissolved oxygen concentrations of 8 to 12 mg/l depending on the temperature of the ground water.
Hydrogen peroxide, pure oxygen and ozone have been proposed as more efficient methods of supplying
oxygen into contaminated aquifers. Concentrations of 40 to 50 mg/l can be achieved with pure oxygen, but
pure oxygen is somewhat expensive, may bubble out of solution before the microorganisms can use it, and
is extremely flammable (Brown et al., 1984).
Hydrogen peroxide is another possible source of oxygen, however, it is used as a sterilant at
concentrations of 3 percent and levels as low as 200 ppm can be toxic to microorganisms (Thomas et al.,
1987). In a column study in which oxygen concentration was varied from 8 to 200 ppm using air, pure
oxygen, or a hydrogen peroxide solution, microbial growth and gasoline degradation were greater in
columns amended with hydrogen peroxide which provided the highest concentration of available oxygen
(Brown et al., 1984). A more thorough review of field studies using hydrogen peroxide can be found in
Thomas et al. (1987). Ozone can also be used as a source of oxygen, but very little research has been
done on it.
1.1.3 Biodegradation Modeling
Modeling biodegradation and biorestoration processes involves: 1) description of the kinetics of
biotransformation in the subsurface, 2) description of transport processes of the contaminant and available
nutrients, and 3) an appropriate procedure for predicting the effect of biorestoration. A few investigators
have begun work on describing some of these processes.
Kosson et al. (1985) use a simple one-dimensional finite difference solution to simulate the movement
of hazardous industrial wastewater through an acclimated soil column. The model adequatly matches
experimental data from the later portion of the column where an acclimated microbial population has
developed.
Angelakis and Rolston (1985) present a mathematical model for simulating the movement of insoluble
and soluble organic carbon through the unsaturated soil profile. The results of the simulation compare
favourably with experimental data from a series of column tests performed using primary wastewater
effluent. Baehr and Corapcioglu (1985) present a one-dimensional model for simulating gasoline transport
by air, water, and free hydrocarbon phases. No experimental data are presented to test the model.
Molz et al. (1986) present a numerical model for simulating substrate and oxygen transport and use
by attached microorganisms. The microbial population is assumed to be immobile and present in
microcolonies of an average radius and thickness. Transport into the microcolonies of oxygen and
substrate is limited by diffusion through a stagnant layer adjacent to the microcolony. Laboratory testing of
the model is planned.
Borden and Bedient (1986) present a numerical model of oxygen-limited biodegradation of
hydrocarbons in the saturated zone. Their model is discussed in detail in the following section as it
provides the basis for the development of BIOPLUME II. Borden et al. (1986) have applied the model to
simulate oxygen-limited biodegradation of creosote wastes at a Superfund site. The model gave an
1-2
-------
adequate description of the observed hydrocarbon and oxygen distributions in the shallow aquifer and was
used to study various remedial actions at the site.
1-3
-------
1.2 Model Development
1.2.1 Equation Formulation
Borden and Bedient (1 986) present the theoretical basis for the development of BIOPLUME II. A
summary of their discussion is presented in this section for completeness. Borden and Bedient (1986)
simulate the growth of microorganisms and removal of hydrocarbon and oxygen using a modification of the
Monod function where:
dH , H ° /iv
- - -M »k -, - r- -, - (1)
dt (Kh + H ) (KO +
dt (Kh + H ) (KQ
(2)
HO
- M k Y + JT r« OC - Jb M_ (3 )
dt n (Kb + H) (KQ + O)
where
H = hydrocarbon concentration
O = oxygen concentration
Mt = total microbial concentration
k = maximum hydrocarbon utilization rate per unit mass microorganism
Y = microbial yield coefficient (g cells/g hydrocarbon)
Kh = hydrocarbon half saturation constant
K0 = oxygen half saturation constant
Kc = first order decay rate of natural organic carbon
OC = natural organic carbon concentration
b = microbial decay rate
F = ratio of oxygen to hydrocarbon consumed
Equations (1) and (2) for oxygen and hydrocarbon removal were combined with the advection-
dispersion equation (Bear, 1979) for a solute undergoing linear instantaneous adsorption and the following
equations were obtained:
dH_ V(DVH - vH) Mt'k H O
dt ~ Rh ' Rh (Kh + H) (KQ + O)
1-4
-------
- V(0VO - vO) - JV*>F - - -- - - (5)
Sfc fc (Kb + ff (KQ + O)
where
D = dispersion tensor
v = ground water velocity vector
Rh = retardation factor for hydrocarbon
The exchange of microorganisms between the solid surface and the free solution was assumed to
be rapid and follow a linear relationship with total concentration. The movement of microorganisms was
simulated using a simple retardation factor approach (Freeze and Cherry, 1979):
K »Y»OC
b'M
H) (K0+ O)
where Ms = concentration of microbes in solution
Ma = concentration of microbes attached to solids
Km = ratio of microbes attached to microbes in solution
Rm = microbial retardation factor
Ma = Km Ms
Mt=Ms + Ma
1.2.2 One-Dimensional Simulations
Studies with the one-dimensional solution indicated that there are three general regions where
different processes control the rate and extent of degradation. Figure 1.1 shows the location of these
regions and the variation in oxygen and hydrocarbon with distance. The rate of biodegradation will be very
high in the region closest to the source where a large microbial biomass will develop and result in nearly
complete removal of oxygen.
1-5
-------
The mass transfer between oxygen in the formation water and hydrocarbon in the plume will limit the
rate of biodegradation in the "heart" of the plume. At the leading edge of the plume, a zone of reduced
oxygen and hydrocarbon concentrations will develop. As the plume continues to move, the zone of
reduced oxygen and hydrocarbon concentrations will increase in size and limit mass transfer. In the third
region, downstream of the contaminant plume, oxygen is present in excess and hydrocarbon will be absent
or present at trace concentrations.
Sensitivity analysis with the one-dimensional model indicated that the various microbial parameters
(Kh, K0 k, Y, F) had little or no effect on the hydrocarbon distribution in the body of the plume and on the
time to hydrocarbon breakthrough. This suggested that the consumption of hydrocarbon and oxygen by
microorganisms in the body of the plume (Region 2, Figure 1.1) can be approximated as an instantaneous
reaction between oxygen and hydrocarbon. In explicit finite difference form, this approximation is written
as:
H(t+1) = H(t)-0(t)/F (7)
O(t+1) = 0
where H(t) > O(t)/F
O(t+1) = O(t)-H(t)«F (8)
H(t+1) = 0
where O(t) > H(t) F
where H(t), H(t+1), O(t), O(t+1) are the hydrocarbon and oxygen concentrations at time t and t+1.
Results obtained using the instantaneous reaction approximation were compared with the complete
one-dimensional solution in Figure 1.1. The instantaneous reaction approximation closely matched the
complete solution except in Region 1. The width of this region will depend on the mixing properties of the
aquifer near the contaminant source, the ground water velocity and the nature of the contaminant. If ground
water velocities are very high or the hydrocarbon is poorly degradable, the area in which the instantaneous
reaction assumption is not applicable may be significant.
1.2.3 Two-Dimensional Simulations
1.2.3.1 Vertical 2-D Simulations
Borden and Bedient (1986) conclude that vertical exchange of oxygen with the unsaturated zone
could potentially result in significant fluxes of oxygen into a hydrocarbon plume and that this exchange
would be most important for contaminants such as gasoline which occur at or near the water table.
Simulation results with the two-dimensional vertical model indicated that the effect of vertical exchange of
oxygen with the unsaturated zone can be approximated as a first order decay in hydrocarbon
concentrations. Sensitivity analysis with the two-dimensional model indicated that the vertical dispersion
coefficient and the saturated thickness had the greatest impact on the first order decay rate.
1.2.3.2 Horizontal 2-D Simulations
Two-dimensional simulations generated plumes with similar characteristics to the one-dimensional
simulations. The most notable characteristic was the lack of lateral spread, i.e, the plumes were long and
narrow. The HC plume has a somewhat lower peak concentration and is much narrower in the cross-
1-6
-------
section than the plume for a nonreactive tracer such as chloride when the source concentration for both
are equal. For non-adsorbing hydrocarbons, the major source of oxygen into a plume seems to be
transverse mixing. Longitudinal mixing has little impact on oxygen exchange with the plume possibly
because the plumes are narrow in width.
Figure 1.1 Process Control Regions
1-7
-------
2. Overview of the Model
2.1 Description of the Program
The purpose of this section is to describe the overall structure of the program and to present a
detailed description of the model's capabilities. This section is not intended to discuss the numerical
methods and techniques used to solve the flow and transport equations since these methods are
discussed in detail in the USGS manual (Konikow and Bredehoeft, 1978). It should be noted, however, that
most numerical limitations of the USGS code apply to BIOPLUME II and the user needs to be aware of
these limitations. The user also needs to be aware of the limitations of the method of characteristics for
solving the transport equation.
The major steps in the calculation procedure are summarized in Figure 2.1, which presents a
simplified flow chart of the overall structure of the computer program. The flow chart illustrates that two
independent sets of particles, O2 tracer particles and HC tracer particles, are generated. Since the tracer
particles may have to be moved more than once to complete a given time step and the reaction between
O2and HC is assumed instantaneous, the O2 and HC tracer particles are moved independently and their
subsequent concentrations are also computed independently. The resulting two plumes (HC and O2) are
combined after every particle move time step to simulate the reaction between O2 and HC. In this version of
the model, it is assumed that three units of oxygen are required to completely mineralize one unit of
hydrocarbon (parameter F, equations 7 and 8, section 1.2.2). More work is necessary before this
parameter can be defined on a compound by compound basis. This technique, although it probably
requires more computational time, is extremely beneficial due mainly to the following reasons:
1) It provides the capability to simulate retarded HC plumes undergoing biodegradation.
2) It allows the simulation of in-situ bio restoration since one can model the injection of oxygenated
water.
3) It maintains the modular structure of the program which makes future updates relatively simple.
For the case of retarded HC plumes undergoing biodegradation, the model automatically computes
the maximum time increments allowable for the explicit calculations for the retarded HC plume and for the
non-retarded O2 plume. The model then uses the smaller of the two time steps for the explicit solution of the
solute transport equation (i.e. the larger number of particle moves is used to complete the given time step).
The flow chart also illustrates that hydraulic gradients are computed once for the aquifer in question.
The flowrates specified for pumping or injection wells are used in the computation. However, if one
specifies an injection well, then that well can be used to simulate a contaminant source, an oxygen source,
or both, by specifying the concentration of HC and/or O2 in the injected water.
Mass balance computations are performed for both O2 and HC independently at the end of every
particle move. The mass balance computations are then adjusted to account for the mass loss due to
biodegradation after the two plumes have been superimposed. The amount of mass loss due to
biodegradation is printed as part of the chemical mass balance output. This is extremely useful since one
can correlate the simulated mass loss with the observed mass loss from field data. The mass balance
computations for O2 are necessary to insure the accuracy of the numerical technique when one is
simulating an O2 injection scheme.
In addition to aerobic biodegradation, the model provides two other sources for biodegradation:
anaerobic decay and reaeration. Both are simulated as a first order decay in HC concentrations, and the
only input requirement is the coefficient of decay. The decay terms are applied at the nodes and not at the
particles. This provides more numerical stability in case the coefficient of decay is much smaller than the
2-1
-------
move time step. The chemical balance output also provides the user with the amount of mass loss due to
reaeration and anaerobic decay.
It should be mentioned that the model can be used to simulate plumes without biodegradation terms.
The user would have to set all the oxygen sources in the model to zero. The output for the oxygen plume is
not suppressed. Instead, a null plume for oxygen is printed.
2.1.1 Incorporated Revisions of the USGS MOC Code
The USGS MOC Code has been modified several times since it was first introduced. The following
changes (referred to by date) have been incorporated in this version of BIOPLUME II:
May 16, 1979
March 26, 1980
August 26, 1981
October 12, 1983
June 10, 1985
July 26, 1985
July 31, 1985
August 2, 1985
Augusts, 1985
August 12, 1985
Future revisions to the USGS MOC Code will be incorporated and released as upgraded versions of
BIOPLUME II.
2.1.2 Code Verification
The accuracy of a numerical solution is usually evaluated by comparing the results from the numerical
solution to the results from an analytical solution for a particular problem. The USGS MOC code has been
compared to several analytical solutions and the user is referred to the documentation on the code for
more details (Konikow and Bredehoeft, 1978).
2.2 Program Capabilities
BIOPLUME II is designed basically to handle two different types of simulations:
1) Simulation of a hydrocarbon plume that is being naturally biodegraded.
2) Simulation of in-situ bio restoration schemes by injecting oxygenated water into the contaminated
aquifer.
The model also has the capability to simulate anaerobic biodegradation and reaeration as a first order
decay in HC concentration.
2.2.1 Simulation of Naturally Occurring Biodegradation
The basic data requirements for this type of simulation would be the physical parameters for the
aquifer and some information about the amount of oxygen available in the aquifer prior to contamination.
BIOPLUME II simulates four sources of O2 in the aquifer:
1) Initial Oxygen Concentration: The initial O2 concentration refers to the dissolved oxygen
available in the aquifer prior to contamination.This value is obtained by performing adissolved
oxygen measurement in the field from a pristine or uncontaminated zone. The background O2
value is input in the array CONC1 (Data Set 10, Appendix A).
2-2
-------
2) Natural Recharge of Oxygen: The natural recharge of O2 refers to the dissolved oxygen that
would be transported into the aquifer due to the flow of ground water. The user can assign an O2
concentration to the constant head nodes. This value is input as the variable FCTR4 (Data Set 7,
Appendix A).
3) Vertical Exchange of Oxygen with the Unsaturated Zone: Vertical exchange of O2 or reaeration
is simulated as a first order decay in HC concentration. A constant decay coefficient (DEC2) is
required as input to the model (Card 4, Appendix A). The first order decay is applied at the nodes
and not to the particles. (This technique prevents any numerical instabilities that could occur if the
coefficient of decay was small relative to the particle movement time step.)
4) Injection of Oxygenated Water: The fourth source of O2 into the aquifer is through injection of O2
rich water. Injection wells specified in Data Set 2 (Appendix A) can be simulated as contaminant
sources, O2 sources, or both. The concentration of O2 is input as the variable CNRECO (Data Set
2, Appendix A).
The first three sources of O2 are used to simulate natural biodegradation of a contaminant plume. Test
Problem #1 (Section 4.1) illustrates the simulation techniques for a contaminant plume undergoing natural
biodegradation using the first two sources of oxygen (initial oxygen and natural recharge). Test Problem #2
(Section 4.2) illustrates the use of reaeration as an additional source of oxygen into an aquifer.
2.2.2 Simulation of In-Situ Biorestoration
In order to simulate in-situ bio restoration schemes, the user must specify the following:
1) The concentration distribution of HC in the aquifer: The HC plume to be cleaned up is input in
the array CONG (Data Set 9, Appendix A). This plume could be obtained from field measurements
or from a previous BIOPLUME II simulation effort (with or without natural biodegradation depending
on the particular field conditions).
2) The concentration distribution of O2in the aquifer: The O2 distribution in the aquifer is input in the
array CONC1 (Data Set 10, Appendix A). This plume can be obtained from a previous BIOPLUME
II simulation if the HC plume was being naturally biodegraded. For other cases, the O2 distribution
would be obtained from field measurements.
3) Injection well data: The location, rate, and concentration of injected water are input in Data Set 2
(Appendix A). The concentration of O2 in the injected water is input as the variable CNRECO (Data
Set 2, Appendix A).
Test Problem #3 illustrates modeling of an in-situ biorestoration scheme. A doublet
injection/production scheme is used to predict the clean-up time required to restore the contaminated
aquifer modeled in Test Problem #1.
2.3 Sensitivity Analysis
In order to define which parameters have the most effect on biodegradation in BIOPLUME II, the
following detailed sensitivity analysis was performed. The parameters that were investigated included:
hydraulic conductivity, dispersivity (longitudinal and transverse), porosity, reaeration, and retardation.
A hypothetical contaminant plume was generated using a single continuous hydrocarbon source. The
above mentioned parameters were then varied individually to determine their effect on biodegradation. The
results from the sensitivity analyses indicate that biodegradation in the model is most sensitive to hydraulic
conductivity, the coefficient of reaeration, and the coefficient of anaerobic decay. The following input data
was utilized in the base run:
2-3
-------
Simulation time
Grid size
Cell size
Porosity
Longitudinal Dispersivity
Transverse Dispersivity
Txx
Tyy
Aquifer thickness
Hydraulic Gradient
Injection well at cell
Injection rate
Cone, of contaminant in injected water
Cone, of oxygen in injected water
Initial Cone, of oxygen
Cone, of natural recharge of oxygen
A detailed discussion of the sensitivity analyses is included
10 years
20 x 30
50 ft x 50 ft
0.3
10 ft
3 ft
.0025 ft2/S
.0025 ft2/S
25 ft
4.29E-3 ft/ft
X=10,Y=10
0.0002 cfs
150 mg/1
0.0 mg/1
8.0 mg/1
8.0 mg/1
in the following sections.
2.3.1 Variation of Concentrations with Hydraulic Conductivity
The hydraulic conductivity (K) was varied from 10~4 ft/sec to 10~7 ft/sec. Figure 2.3 is a plot of the
contaminant and oxygen concentrations along the centerline of the plume (cross section A - A, Figure 2.2)
for three values of hydraulic conductivity. It can be seen that the hydraulic conductivity has a significant
effect on biodegradation. The maximum contaminant concentration varied from 29.6 mg/l (K = 10~4 ft/sec)
to 130 mg/l (K = 10~7 ft/sec). The change in biodegraded mass with hydraulic conductivity is illustrated in
Figure 2.4.
2.3.2 Variation of Concentrations with Retardation
The effect of retardation on biodegradation was studied by using a retardation factor, R, greater than
1. Figure 2.5 presents the variation in contaminant and oxygen concentrations along the centerline of the
plume (section A - A, Figure 2.2) for three values of R. It can be seen that the mass of hydrocarbon
remaining at the end of the simulation period decreases with increasing values of R. The percent of mass
biodegraded relative to the total dissolved mass, however, decreases for increasing values of R (Figure
2.4b).
Table 2.1 lists the percent of mass biodegraded relative to the total dissolved mass and the percent
of mass biodegraded relative to the total stored mass. Table 2.1 also lists the percent of mass adsorbed
relative to the total stored mass for the three values of R. Table 2.1 indicates that the percent of
biodegraded mass decreases with increasing values of retardation (columns A and B).
Table 2.1 - Percent Biodegraded Mass as a Function of the Retardation Factor (R)
R A B C
1 30.25 30.25 0.00
2 27.73 13.86 50.00
3 25.74 8.58 66.67
A = BIWTDM
B = BM/TSM
C = AM/TSM
BM = Biodegraded Mass
AM = Adsorbed Mass
TDM = Dissolved Mass + Biodegraded Mass
TSM = Dissolved Mass + Biodegraded Mass + Adsorbed Mass
2.3.3 Variation of Concentrations with Dispersivity
The variation of contaminant concentrations with dispersivity was examined by looking at the
longitudinal and transverse dispersivities independently.
2-4
-------
2.3.3.1 Longitudinal Dispersivity
The longitudinal dispersivity was varied from 10 ft to 1 ft. Figure 2.6 presents the variation in
contaminant and oxygen concentrations along the centerline of the contaminant plume (section A - A,
Figure 2.2) for three values of longitudinal dispersivity. It can be seen that the longitudinal dispersivity also
has a slight effect on biodegradation. The maximum contaminant concentrations varied from 29.6 mg/l (10
ft) to 41.7 mg/l (1 ft). The change in biodegraded mass with longitudinal dispersivity is illustrated in Figure
2.7.
2.3.3.2 Transverse Dispersivity
The transverse dispersivity was varied from 1 ft to 5 ft. Figure 2.8 shows the variation of contaminant
and oxygen concentrations with transverse dispersivity along a transverse cross section through the
centerline of the plume (cross section B - B, Figure 2.2). The transverse dispersivity does not seem to have
an appreciable effect on biodegradation. The areal extent of the plume is not very sensitive to the
transverse dispersivity, however, the maximum concentrations exhibit a wide range of variation. The
maximum contaminant concentrations varied from 26.5 mg/l (5 ft) to 35.5 mg/l (1 ft). The change in
biodegraded mass with transverse dispersivity is illustrated in Figure 2.7.
2.3.4 Variation of Concentrations with Porosity
The porosity was varied from 0.25 to 0.7. Figure 2.9 shows the variation of contaminant and oxygen
concentrations with porosity along the centerline of the plume (section A-A, Figure 2.2). It is evident that
porosity does not have a significant effect on biodegradation. The maximum contaminant concentrations
varied from 29.0 mg/l (n = 0.25) to 35.0 mg/l (n = 0.5). The change in biodegraded mass with porosity is
illustrated in Figure 2.4b.
2.3.5 Variation of Concentrations with Reaeration Coefficient
The reaeration coefficient, k, was varied from 0.0 day"1 to 0.005 day"1. Figure 2.10 presents the
variation of contaminant and oxygen concentrations with k along the centerline of the plume (cross section
A - A, Figure 2.2). It is evident that the coefficient of reaeration has a significant effect on biodegradation.
The areal extent of the contaminant plume as well as the maximum concentrations exhibit a wide range of
variation with k. The maximum concentrations varied from 29.6 mg/l (k = 0.0 day"1) to 17.6 mg/l (k = 0.005
day1). The change in biodegraded mass with k is presented in Figure 2.4a.
2.4 Model Output
Typical output from BIOPLUME II includes an oxygen and hydrocarbon distribution matrix at selected
points in time (see Appendix B). These matrices can be plotted as contour plots (Figure 4.1) or surface
plots using the SURFER graphics package (Golden Software, 1987). The graphics option in the
BIOPLUME II preprocessor will transform the oxygen and hydrocarbon matrices to the required format for
direct use in SURFER.
It can be seen from Figure 4.1 that whenever hydrocarbon is present in relatively high concentrations,
then oygen is absent. The oxygen plume forms an envelope for the hydrocarbon plume with oxygen
concentrations gradually increasing to initial background levels as one moves away from the contaminant
plume. The model output also includes a mass balance computation for oxygen and hydrocarbon at the
selected points in time. The dissolved mass present in the system for each is computed, as well as the
biodegraded mass. The hydrocarbon mass balance computation details the biodegraded mass due to the
different processes available in the model (aerobic, anaerobic, reaeration and radioactive decay). It is
noted at this point that a detailed analysis of mass balance errors computed in BIOPLUME II is being
performed for a variety of conditions and geometries. The results of the analysis will be included in future
updates to the manual.
2-5
-------
2.5 Summary
BIOPLUME II simulates hydrocarbon transport under the influence of oxygen limited biodegradation. A
dual particle mover concept is used to compute an oxygen plume and a hydrocarbon plume. An
instantaneous reaction between the solute (hydrocarbon) and the substrate (oxygen) is assumed and the
method of superposition is utilized to represent the reaction between the two. An independent mass
balance is performed for oxygen and hydrocarbon and is adjusted to account for the mass loss due to
biodegradation.
The model can be used to simulate naturally occuring biodegradation processes and to simulate in-
situ restoration processes. Injection wells can be used as oxygen sources in the model. Three other
sources of oxygen are included in BIOPLUME II: (1) dissolved oxygen in the aquifer; (2) natural recharge,
and; (3) oxygen exchange fron the unsaturated zone.
The biodegraded mass in the model is most sensitive to hydraulic conductivity, the coefficient of
reaeration, and the coefficient of anaerobic decay. The model has been applied to two sites: a wood
creosoting process waste site in Conroe, Texas (Borden et al., 1986) and a jet fuel spill site in Traverse
City, Michigan. The model application to the Traverse City site is presently being submitted for publication.
The model provided a good match to field conditions at both sites. BIOPLUME II is presently being used to
design an in-situ bioreclamation field experiment at the Traverse City field site. Results from the experiment
will also be published in the literature.
Figure 2.1 Simplified Flowchart of Bioplume II
Figure 2.2 Schematic of the Centerline and Tranverse Section of a Plume
Figure 2.3 Concentration Distributions for Various Values of Hydraulic Conductivity
Figure 2.4a Variation of Biodegraded Mass with Various Parameters
Figure 2.4b Variation of Biodegraded Mass with Various Parameters
Figure 2.5 Concentration Distributions for Various Values of Retardation
Figure 2.6 Concentration Distributions for Various Values of Longitudinal Dispersivity
Figure 2.7 Variation of Biodegraded Mass with Dispersivity
Figure 2.8 Concentration Distributions for Various Values of Transverse Dispersivity
Figure 2.9 Concentration Distributions for Various Values of Porosity
Figure 2.10 Concentration Distributions for Various Values of the Reaeration Coefficient
2-6
-------
3. Use of the Preprocessor
A user-friendly menu-driven preprocessor has been written for BIOPLUME II. This preprocessor
allows a user to create and/or edit data files, run the BIOPLUME II program, and prepare graphics files. The
preprocessor can be executed by typing the command:
menu
This command will cause a title screen to be displayed on the terminal. When the enter or carriage
return key is pressed, a second title screen will appear. Pressing the enter key again will cause the main
menu to be displayed:
1 Edit/Create an Input Data File
2 Run BIOPLUME II
3 Prepare Graphics Files
4 QUIT
To choose an option, simply type the number of the option and press the enter or return key (indicated
by or ). Each of the options of the main menu are discussed in more detail in the following
sections.
Throughout the remainder of this manual, messages which the computer displays on the screen will
be indicated in boldface type, such as that used above in the main menu. Commands or responses entered
by the user will be indicated in smaller type such as the command
menu
Responses to the program may be made in either upper or lower case. The program will recognize an
N
and an
n
as the same response. You may stop at any point in the program simply by pressing CTRL C (hold down
the CTRL key and press C at the same time). The following message will appear on the screen:
Press the key to continue . . .
Pressing the key will return you to the main menu.
3.1 Option 1: Edit/Create an Input Data File
Option 1 of the main menu allows one to either edit an existing data file or create a new data file. The
editing program is structured to allow editing of an entire data file or any portion of a data file. When option
1 is selected, a message will appear on the screen which indicates the version of the editing program. A
continuation prompt appears at the bottom of the screen. If you do not wish to continue, type an
N
and . (Remember that responses may be in either upper or lower case.) Pressing
again will return you to the main menu.
If you do wish to continue with the Edit/Create option, enter the letter
Y
and press the key or simply press the key. The screen will clear and the following
menu will appear.
3-1
-------
Loader
Main Menu
1. Edit file name
2. Edit card 1 (Title)
3. Edit card 2 (Grid/timing parameters)
4. Edit card 3 (Grid/timing parameters)
5. Edit card 4 (Reaction parameters)
6. Edit data set 1 (Observation wells)
7. Edit data set 2 (Pump/Inject wells)
8. Edit data set 3 (Transmissivity map)
9. Edit data set 4 (Thickness map)
10. Edit data set 5 (Recharge map)
11. Edit data set 6 (Nodeid map)
12. Edit data set 7 (Nodeid code definitions)
13. Edit data set 8 (Water table elevations)
14. Edit data set 9 (Initial hydrocarbon cone.)
15. Edit data set 10 (Initial oxygen cone.)
16. Edit data set 11 (Pumping periods)
17. Write data to file
18 Quit
Enter the number of your choice (1-18)
Selections 2 through 16 allow editing of groups of data. As each group of data is edited, variable
names and values appear on the screen. If there is a limiting range of values which a variable can assume,
that range will appear on the screen in the form (X..Y) where X is the lower bound and Y is the upper
bound. In the event that there is only a lower bound the range will be in the form (X...).
A prompt will ask if you wish to change the value for that variable. Once all the variables on a Data Set
or Card have been changed, the following prompt will appear:
Hit the return key to continue with the next item or enter 'M1
to return to the main menu
Pressing the return key will cause the next item in the data file to appear on the screen. For instance,
if you have just entered a new title card, the next item for editing would be the variables on Card 1. Entering
an
M
and pressing the return key will return the editing menu to the screen.
3.1.1 Selection 1 - Editing an Existing Data File
Selection 1 will prompt for an input file name. This is the file from which existing data will be read. If the
file does not exist, the prompt for the input file name will be repeated until a file name is entered which does
exist. The program reads the data in the input file and assigns values to each variable. These values may
then be edited using options 2 through 16 or by simply hitting the return key and continuing with the next
item.
If an error should occur while the program is reading an input data file, the number of the Card or Data
Set in which the error occurred will be displayed on the screen. If the data file was created with an editor
other than the Preprocessor, use that editor to determine if the data is in the correct format (see Appendix
A). In the event that the data file was created using the Preprocessor, make a note of the location of the
error and report the problem by mailing in the software problem report sheet included in your package, or
by calling the number listed in the front of the manual.
3-2
-------
3.1.2 Creating an Input File
If an input file name is not entered (with option 1), default values are assigned to each variable. The
default values have been set equal to the values used in Test Problem #1 (see Section 4.1). It is suggested
that you try creating a data file with all default values, then run BIOPLUME II using that file. Check the
results and compare them to the output from Test Problem #1 (Appendix B). Any differences in the output
data should be minor.
3.1.3 Selection 2 - Card 1
Card 1 is the title of the problem. Any title containing up to 80 alphanumeric characters can be
entered.
3.1.4 Selection 3 - Card 2
Card 2 contains 18 variables pertaining to input and output control. Each of these variables are
displayed on the screen, one at a time, in order. A definition of the variable and the range which it is limited
to appear on the screen along with the prompt
Do you wish to change this value? (Y/N)
This prompt, or versions of it, appear throughout the Edit/Create program. It is referred to as the
change prompt in the following discussions.
Once all 18 variables have been entered, you may continue to the next item by hitting the return key
or enter an
M
and return to go back to the menu.
3.1.5 Selection 4 - Card 3
Card 3 contains 12 variables which describe the physical characteristics of the aquifer. Each of these
variables are displayed on the screen, one at a time, in order. A definition of the variable and the range
which it is limited to appear on the screen along with the change prompt. Once all the variables have been
entered, continue to the next item or return to the menu.
3.1.6 Selection 5 - Card 4
Card 4 contains information necessary for retardation and/or decay. This card is skipped if
NREACT=0. If NREACT=0, and selection 5 is chosen from the menu, a message will appear which
reminds you that Card 4 is not needed when NREACT=0. Each of the variables for Card 4 are displayed on
the screen, one at a time, in order. A definition of the variable and the range which it is limited to appear on
the screen along with the prompt to change the value. Once all 5 variables have been entered, continue to
the next item or return to the menu.
3.1.7 Selection 6 - Data Set 1
Data Set 1 contains the coordinates of the observation points. If there are no observation points
(NUMOBS=0), then this data set is skipped. When observation points are specified (NUMOBS>0), then
there will be one line for each point. The screen will display the number of observation wells specified, the
well number, and the current X and Y coordinates of the well. The locations of the observation wells must
be changed one at a time. To do this, enter a
3-3
-------
in response to the change prompt. Then enter the well number and the location (x,y) as integers. The
integers may be separated by commas, spaces, or by a carriage return . For example, if
NUMOBS=2, the screen will display the following:
There are 2 observation wells specified
Well Number X Y
100
200
Do you wish to change any of these? (Y/N)
To define an observation point at node 5,5 you would type:
Y
Then the program would prompt:
Enter Well Number, X, and Y as integers separated by commas.
Any of the following three responses would define the second observation point as being located at
node 5,5.
2,5,5
255
2
5
5
After each well is changed, the screen will display the location of all the wells. Once all wells are
properly defined by location, enter a negative response to the change prompt and continue to the next item
or return to the menu.
3.1.8 Selection 7 - Data Set 2
Data Set 2 contains information about pumping/injection water wells. First, the program will display the
number and location of these wells. (If NREC=0, this data set is skipped.) The locations should be defined
in the same manner as the locations of the observation wells were defined.
In addition to the location, the pumping or injection rate and concentration must be defined. To indicate
that a well is pumping, the rate (cfs) is entered as a positive value. Injection is indicated with a negative
value. The variable CONG is the concentration of the contaminant which is being injected. The variable 02
CONG is the concentration of oxygenated water which is being injected. (See Appendix A for more detail
on variable definition). Note that only injection wells will need to have a concentration defined.
Once all of the wells have been given a location, pumping/injection rate, and concentration, continue
to the next item or return to the menu.
3.1.9 Selection 8 - Data Set 3
Data Set 3 contains transmissivity information. The program will display the current transmissivity
map. To change the current map, enter a positive response to the change prompt. There are three ways to
change the transmissivity map:
Enter a zero (0) for a constant Transmissivity,
a one (1) if you wish to enter a map,
or a two (2) if you wish to enter an individual value
3-4
-------
Selection 0 is used to enter a constant transmissivity. When this selection is used, you will be asked
for the value of transmissivity and a factor by which to multiply the transmissivity. This factor is used when
the transmissivity is outside the bounds of the input format (see Appendix A). For instance, if you wish to
input a constant transmissivity of 10,000 ft2 /sec, you would have to enter a constant transmissivity of 100
ft2 /sec with a multiplication factor of 100. The same is true of all multiplication factors throughout the
program.
Selection 1 is used to enter a map of transmissivity. When this selection is used, you will be asked to
enter transmissivity values by row. For instance, if the grid has 10 columns and the transmissivity along
row one is all equal to 10, you would enter 10 ten times, each separated by a space, comma, or .
This would be repeated for each row until the entire transmissivity map is defined. The program will then
ask for the multiplication factor for these values.
Selection 2 allows an individual value to be entered into the map. When this option is selected you
will be prompted to enter the location of the node (x,y) and the value of transmissivity at that node. Again,
the program will ask for a multiplication factor.
An anisotropic aquifer can be modeled by entering a value for ANFCTR on Card 3 which is not equal
to one. Then enter the values of Txx into the transmissivity map. These values will be multiplied by ANFCTR
to obtain the values for Tyy. Note that the multiplication factor which is entered with the transmissivity map is
not the same as ANFCTR.
After the selection is completed, the transmissivity map will be displayed on the screen along with the
change prompt. If the values are correct, enter a negative response and continue to the next item or return
to the menu.
3.1.10 Selection 9 - Data Set 4
Data Set 4 contains aquifer thickness information. The program will display the map of the thickness
and ask if you wish to make any changes. Changes are made in the exact same manner as for the
transmissivity map (Data Set 3).
3.1.11 Selection 10 - Data Set 5
Recharge information is contained in Data Set 5. Changes to the recharge map are made in the same
manner as for transmissivity and thickness (Data Set 3 and 4). Diffuse recharge should be entered as
negative (-) values and discharge should be entered as positive (+) values.
3.1.12 Selection 11 - Data Set 6
Node identifications are contained in Data Set 6. Node identifications are used to define constant-
head nodes or other boundary conditions. The number of node ids available is set by the variable
NCODES on Card 2. The current node id map will be displayed on the screen along with the change
prompt. The following methods are available to make changes:
Enter one of the following values:
0 - Constant node id for whole map.
1 - Node id = 1 along top and bottom edges.
2 - as for 1, with additional node ids specified.
3 - as is with additional node ids specified.
4 - enter whole map.
Selection 0 allows one to enter a constant node id for the whole map. Selection 1 sets the node
identification to 1 along the top and bottom edges (rows 2 and NY-1). Selection 2 will set the same
conditions as Selection 1 and allow you to enter additional node ids at specific points. When this option is
used, you will be prompted to enter the number of additional points to be entered. Then each of those
3-5
-------
points must be entered as a location (x,y) and node id value. Selection 3 will prompt for the number of
points to be added to the map. These points are entered as a location (x,y) and value. The entire map can
be entered by using Selection 4. This option operates in the same manner as Selection 1 of Data Sets 3
through 5, prompting for all values on each row.
After a selection has been executed, the map will reappear on the screen along with the change
prompt. If the values are correct, enter a negative response and continue to the next item or return to the
menu.
3.1.13 Selection 12 - Data Set 7
Node identification codes are specified in Data Set 7. These are used to define the node
identifications specified in Data Set 6. The program will display the node id codes which may be specified
and the factors which can be set.
There are 2 node identification codes specified
Code Leakance Contaminant Cone Oxygen Cone Change recharge? Recharge
11.0000 .000 .000 No
2 .0000 .000 .000 No
When the variable NODEID is equal to a node id code (ICODE), then the corresponding variables
are set equal to the factors entered in this data set. To change node id codes, you must first enter a
Y
in response to the change prompt. Then you must enter the number of the id which you wish to change.
The following options will appear on the screen:
Enter one of the following. . .
1 - Constant head
2 - Source cell
3 - Other
Selection 1 will set the leakance factor to 1 and all other factors will remain 0. Selection 2 will prompt
for more information:
Enter 1 for a contaminant source,
2 for an oxygen source
or 3 for a combined source
If you enter a 1, you will be prompted for the contaminant concentration. If you enter a 2, the same
prompts will be repeated except that the oxygen concentration will be asked for instead of the contaminant
concentration. A 3 will cause both the contaminant and oxygen concentrations to be prompted for. For any
of these three sources, leakance is assumed to be equal to 1. A source cell is assumed to have no
recharge. Therefore, the recharge cannot be changed for this node id.
Selection 3 allows you to enter a code for nodes which do not fit into either of the other two options.
Each of the variables will be prompted for individually. After the leakance and the contaminant and oxygen
concentrations have been entered, the program will ask if you wish to change the recharge rate. If so, the
program will then ask for the new rate. If not, the recharge will remain the same as specified in the
recharge map (Data Set 5).
3-6
-------
3.1.14 Selection 13-Data Set 8
Data Set 8 contains the initial water table information. Though it is referred to as the water table map,
the data entered here could also be the potentiometric elevation or constant head in a stream bed. The
options to change the map are:
Enter a zero (0) for a constant water table,
a one (1) if you wish to enter a map,
a two (2) if you wish to enter values at a specified nod id
or a three (3) if you wish to enter an individual value
Selections 0, 1, and 3 operate in the same manner as for the previous maps (see Data Set 3).
Selection 2 allows one to enter the water table for those points which have been defined by a node id.
When this option is executed, you will be asked for which node id you wish to specify the water table. The
program will then prompt you for the water table at each of the nodes which are identified by that node id.
For example, if the node ids have been set to 1 along the top and bottom edges of the node id map (option
1, Data Set 6) and you wish to def ine a water table along those same edges, you could do so by selecting
option 2. Then enter a 1 when asked for the node id. The program would then ask for the water table
elevation at column 2 row 2. After you enter a value, the program would ask for the water table elevation at
column 3 row 2. This would continue until all the nodes defined by node id 1 had been assigned a value for
the water table.
Once a selection has been executed, the water table map will reappear on the screen along with the
change prompt. If the values are correct, continue to the next item or return to the menu.
3.1.15 Selection 14 - Data Set 9
Initial contaminant concentrations are contained in Data Set 9. The options to change the
concentration map are:
Enter a zero (0) for a constant initial concentration,
a one (1) if you wish to enter a map,
or a two (2) if you wish to enter an individual value
These selections are executed in the same manner as previously described (see Data Set 3).
3.1.16 Selection 15 - Data Set 10
Data Set 10 contains the initial oxygen concentration. The options for changing the oxygen map are
the same as for changing the contaminant concentration map (see Data Set 9).
3.1.17 Selection 16 - Data Set 11
Data Set 11 is used to revise several timing, printing, and pumping variables for each pumping period
(see Appendix A). This data set is only used when the value of NPMP>1 (see Card 2). If NPMP>1, the
program will display the current values of the variables and ask if you wish to change them for the next
pumping period. A positive response will cause the program to prompt for each variable in turn. You must
enter a value for all of the variables as they are prompted for. Once the variables have been entered for a
pumping period, the procedure is repeated until the last pumping period has been reached.
3.1.18 Selection 17 -Write Data File
This option is used to write the edited data to a file. If a file name is entered which already exists, a
prompt will ask if you want to overwrite the existing file. If so, the file will be overwritten. If not, you will be
prompted for a new file name.
3-7
-------
3.1.19 Selection 18-Quit
Selection 18 returns the main menu to the screen. If data has been edited but not written to a file, the
following prompt will appear:
Any changes made have NOT been written to a file Do you wish
to write them before quitting? (Yes/No)
This ensures that you cannot accidentally quit the Edit/Create option of the main menu and cause any
editing to be lost.
3.2 Option 2: Run BIOPLUME II
Option 2 allows a user to run the BIOPLUME II model from the main menu. When this option is
selected, the program will prompt:
Enter name of input file . . .
Type in the name of an input file. This can be a file which was created using the Edit/Create option or
by some other means. If the file does not exist, the program will display a message telling you that the file
does not exist and repeat the prompt for the input file name. (Remember that CTRL C will return you to the
main menu.) If the file does exist, the program will prompt:
Enter name of output file. . .
If this file name already exists, the program will ask if you wish to replace the existing file. If a negative
response is received, the prompt for the output file name is repeated.
Once the proper input and output file names have been entered, BIOPLUME II is run using the data
from the input file. Output is written to the output file. The program does take a few minutes to run, so
please be patient.
If an error occurs, you can discover where it occurred by looking at the output data file. The DOS
editor EDLIN or any other text editor may be used to examine the output file. (See your DOS manual for
more information on EDLIN). Find the point at which the program stopped, or any input variable which was
not read properly. Check the input data file to make sure that it contains the proper data. If you cannot
locate the source of the error, call the phone number listed in the front of this manual or send in the
software problem report sheet included in your package with the problem described in as much detail as
possible.
3.3 Option 3: Prepare Graphics Files
Option 3 is used to convert the output from BIOPLUME II into files which can be plotted using
SURFER (Golden Software, 1987). The format for SURFER consists of three columns of data. This data is
the form X, Y, Z and could be used with any other plotting package which uses that format.
BIOPLUME II automatically writes output data to three files named HEADS.BIO, HPLUME.BIO and
OPLUME.BIO. The file HEADS.BIO contains the array of computed head values at the end of each time
step. HPLUME.BIO and OPLUME.BIO contain the HC and O2 plumes, respectively.
The first line of the file HPLUME.DAT contains the variables NTIM, NPMP, NX, NY, NPNT, and
NPNTMV. This line is read before converting any of the data from the files HEADS.BIO, HPLUME.BIO, and
OPLUME.BIO into the graphical data format. It informs the program how often the chemical and hydraulic
output was requested by the user. In other words, it tells the program just how many plumes can be
converted for use with SURFER.
3-8
-------
The files with the HC and O2 plumes also contain a line of data before each plume. This line contains
the pumping period number, time step number, and number of moves completed. This allows the program
to determine which plume is being requested for conversion. It also allows you to convert and plot several
plumes from the same output data.
When Option 3 is selected, the following menu will appear on the screen:
Graphics Menu
1 - Head map data
2 - Hydrocarbon plume data
3 - Oxygen plume data
4 - Quit
Enter the number of your choice (1..4)...
When selections 1, 2, or 3 are chosen, the following prompt will appear on the screen:
Enter a name for the output file You may specify a full path
and directory, up to 60 characters
Enter the file name you wish to have the data written to and press the key. It is suggested
that you specify a file name with a DAT extension.
To convert HC and O2 plume data, you must specify which plume you wish to use. After entering the
name of the output file, a prompt will appear:
You may graph plumes in any time step after multiples of 10
moves, or you may graph plumes at the end of the following time
steps
If NPNTMV > 0, another prompt will appear:
Enter a 1 to graph data after a number of moves,
or a 2 to graph data at the end of a time step
The number of time steps for which plumes were computed will appear after the first prompt. The
second prompt will not appear if NPNTMV = 0 since the only data requested for output was the data at the
end of the time steps. If NPNTMV> 0, enter the option which you wish to use.
If there is more than one pumping period, the program will ask you to enter the pumping period you
wish to use. Then you will be prompted to enter the time period desired. If you have chosen selection 2, the
program automatically converts the data for the last move. If you have chosen selection 1, the move
numbers which are available will be displayed. Enter the move number which you wish to use. For either
option, the data for the plume will be converted and written to the output file specified and the Graphics
Menu will reappear on the screen. If you wish to convert more data, repeat the above procedure. Selecting
option 4 (Quit) will return the Main Menu to the screen.
The converted files are stored in the file name specified. To graph the data, it is suggested that you
use a plotting package such as SURFER from Golden Software (1987). A SURFER manual is enclosed for
those who have purchased the program along with BIOPLUME II.
3.4 Option 4: QUIT
Selecting Option 4 will stop the program and return you to DOS.
3-9
-------
4. Test Problems
4.1 Test Problem # 1 - Natural Biodegradation
4.1.1 Description:
Test problem #1 is an illustration of how to simulate a contaminant plume that is undergoing naturally
occuring biodegradation. The problem simulates a single hydrocarbon source which could be a leaking
underground storage tank or some other source of contamination. A hypothetical site with "typical" values
for physical parameters is modeled for this problem.
Two sources of naturally occuring oxygen are used: initial dissolved oxygen in the aquifer prior to
contamination, and recharge of oxygen across the boundaries of the hypothetical site. Steady state
conditions are assumed and the source of contamination is modeled using an injection well.
4.1.2 Input Data:
The following data was assumed:
Simulation time 6 years
Grid size 11x20
Cell size 50ftx50ft
Injection well at cell X=6,Y=6
Injection rate 0.0002 cfs
Cone, of Contaminant in injected water 100.0 mg/1
Cone, of Oxygen in injected water 0.0 mg/1
Initial cone, of oxygen 8.0 mg/1
Cone, of natural recharge of oxygen 8.0 mg/1
Note that even though the concentrations in the model have no units, it is important for the
contaminant and oxygen concentrations to be expressed in the same scale, (i.e., if the contaminant
concentration is input in mg/1, then the oxygen concentration needs to be in mg/1).
Data sets 2, 6, 7, and 10 will be discussed in detail to indicate where the oxygen data is input. The
complete input data for this test problem are listed on the following pages.
Data set #2: IX.IY,REG,CNRECH,CNRECO
IX = 6
IY = 6
REG = 0.0002 cfs
CNRECH = 100.0
CNRECO = 0.0
Note that the concentration of oxygen in the injected water (0 mg/1) is input as CNRECO.
4-1
-------
Test Problems
Data set #6: INPUT,FCTR
NODEID
INPUT = 1
FCTR = 1
NODEID:
00000000000
01111111110
00000000000
00000000000
00000000000
00000000000
00000000000
00000000000
00000000000
00000000000
00000000000
00000000000
00000000000
00000000000
00000000000
00000000000
00000000000
00000000000
01111111110
00000000000
Data set #7: ICODE.FCTR1 ,FCTR2,FCTR4,FCTR3,OVERRD
ICODE = 1
FCTR1 = 1.0 ft/s (= leakance)
FCTR2 = 0.0 (= CNRECH)
FCTR4 = 8.0 (= CNRECO)
FCTR3 = 0 (= RECH)
OVERRD = 0
Note that the recharge concentration of oxygen across the constant head boundaries (8 mg/l) is input
as FCTR4.
Data set #10: INPUT.FCTR
CONC1
INPUT = 0
FCTR = 8.0
Note that since the concentration of oxygen in the aquifer prior to contamination is constant (8 mg/l), the
value was input as FCTR (i.e., there is no need to input the value in matrix form).
4.1.3 Output Data:
The complete output data for this problem are included in Appendix B. Figure 4.1 presents a contour
plot of the contaminant and oxygen plumes for Test Problem #1 after 6 years. It can be seen that oxygen is
absent wherever there is contamination, and contamination is absent wherever the concentration of
oxygen is at pre-contamination levels (8 mg/l). It can also be seen that around the edges of the plume,
there is a zone of reduced oxygen and hydrocarbon concentrations.
4-2
-------
In order to illustrate the effects of natural biodegradation on contaminant plumes, the same problem
was simulated without oxygen sources, i.e., without biodegradation. The resulting contaminant plume is
plotted in Figure 4.2 and the concentration matrix is listed following the output data for this test problem
(Appendix B). If the contaminant plumes of Figures 4.1 and 4.2 are compared, the following can be
concluded:
1. The biodegraded plume is narrower than the non-biodegraded plume.
2. The maximum concentration in the biodegraded plume is less than that in the non-biodegraded
plume.
3. The total contaminant mass in the biodegraded plume is less than that in the non-biodegraded
plume.
Note: The mass loss due to biodegradation is printed as part of the chemical balance output and can
be correlated with field data if available. This helps in the calibration effort by checking the projected mass
loss against that from the measured concentration data in the field.
4-3
-------
Test Problems
Input Data f or Test Problem #1
TEST PROBLEM #1 - NATURAL BIODEGRADATION
1
0 0
0 0
510
6 6
0
0
0
1 11
0
6.0
0
202000 171 100 1 9 10
1
0.001
0 0
0.3 10. 000 50. 50. 0.1 0.5 1.0
-.0002
.0025
25.0
0.0
1 1.0
00000000000
01111111110
00000000000
00000000000
00000000000
00000000000
00000000000
00000000000
00000000000
00000000000
00000000000
00000000000
00000000000
00000000000
00000000000
00000000000
00000000000
00000000000
01111111110
00000000000
1.0
1.0
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
100.
97.
0.
100.
0.
0.0
0.
100.
0.
100.
8.0
0.
100.
0.00
Card 1
Card2
Card 3
Card 4
Data Set 1
Data Set 2
Data Set 3
Data Set 4
Data Set 5
Start of Data Set 6
End of Data Set 6
Data Set 7
Start of Data Set 8
0.
100.
0.
100.
0.
100.
0.
100.
0.
100.
97.
0.
97.
0.
97.
0.
97.
0.
97.
0.
97.
0.
97.
0.
97.
0.
End of Data Set 8
4-4
-------
0 0.0 Data Set 9
0 8.0 Data Set 10
4-5
-------
4.2 Test Problem #2 - Natural Biodegradation with Reaeration
4.2.1 Description:
Test Problem #2 is similar to Test Problem #1 except that a third source of oxygen into the plume is
simulated. The source is vertical exchange of oxygen from the unsaturated zone. The effect of reaeration is
a first order decay in hydrocarbon concentrations (Chapter 2).
4.2.2 Input Data:
The coeffiecient of reaeration used in this problem is 0.0005 days . The value of the coefficient of
reaeration is input in card #4 in the fifth field. (Note that NREACT, card #2, field 18, has already been set to
1 in Test Problem #1).
The input data for problem 2 are listed on the following pages.
4.2.3 Output Data:
The output data are included in Appendix C. If one compares the concentration matrix for problem #1
with that for problem #2, then it is evident that reaeration accounts for a significant reduction in contaminant
concentrations. The mass loss due to reaeration is printed as part of the chemical balance output.
It is noted that reaeration can be used as a calibration parameter. For cases where the observed loss
of mass is in excess of that projected by the model due to the two sources of oxygen utilized in problem #1,
reaeration can be used to increase the projected mass loss due to biodegradation processes.
It should be also mentioned that anaerobic decay can be simulated in the same manner as reaeration,
i.e., a coefficient of anaerobic decay needs to be specified in the fourth field of the fourth card. However,
one must have an indication of anaerobic biodegradation processes from field data before the anaerobic
decay option can be utilized for simulation runs.
4-6
-------
Test Problems
Input Data for Test Problem #2.
TEST PROBLEM #2 - NATURAL BIODEGRADATION WITH REAERATION
1 1 11 202000 171 100 1 9 1 0 0 0 00
6.00 .001 0.3 10. 0 00 50. 50. 0.1 0.5 1.0
00 00 0.0005 Reaeration Coefficient
510
66 -.0002 100. 0.
0 .0025
0 25.0
0 0.0
1 1.0
00000000000
01111111110
00000000000
00000000000
00000000000
00000000000
00000000000
00000000000
00000000000
00000000000
00000000000
00000000000
00000000000
00000000000
00000000000
00000000000
00000000000
00000000000
01111111110
00000000000
1 1.0 0.0 8.0 0.00
1 1 .0
0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.
0. 100. 100. 100. 100. 100. 100. 100. 100 100. 0
0.
0.
0
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0. 97. 97. 97. 97. 97. 97. 97. 97. 97. 0.
0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.
0 0.0
0 8.0
4-7
-------
4.3 Test Problem #3 - In-Situ Biorestoration
4.3.1 Description:
Test Problem #3 is an illustration of how to simulate in-situ biorestoration. A doublet restoration
scheme is simulated with one injection well and one production well. The injection well is used as an
oxygen source and the production well basically pumps out contaminated water. The concentration of
oxygen in the injected water is assumed to be 8 mg/l.
4.3.2 Input Data:
The problem is set up such that the contaminant and oxygen plumes from problem 1 are used as the
initial condition in the aquifer. Data set #2 is discussed in detail to indicate how to simulate a well which is
injecting oxygen for biorestoration. The complete input data for Test Problem #3 are listed in the following
pages.
Data set #2: IX.IY.REC,CNRECH,CNRECO
Inj ection Well:
IX = 6
IY = 5
REG = - 0.0016
CNRECH = 0.0
CNRECO = 8 mg/l
Production Well:
IX = 6
IY = 1 1
REG = 0.0016
CNRECH = 0.0
CNRECO = 0.0
4.3.3 Output Data:
The output data for problem #3 are listed in Appendix D. Figure 4.3 presents a contour plot of the
contaminant plume after 6 years. For comparison the same well configuration was used to compute the
contaminant plume without biodegradation after 6 years. Figure 4.3 also presents a plot of the non-
biodegraded plume. It can be seen that the extent of cleanup is more with oxygen injection and the
biodegraded plume is much smaller than the non-biodegraded plume. It is also noted that if the oxygen
concentration in the injected water can be increased, then the cleanup time can be reduced considerably.
4-8
-------
Test Problems
Input Data for Test Problem #3.
TEST PROBLEM NO 3 - IN-SITU BIORESTORATION
1 1 11 202000 171 100 291000001
6.00.001 0.3 10. 0 00 50. 50. 0.1 0.5 1.0
00000
510
65 -.0016 0.0 8.0
611 .0016
0 .0025
0 25.0
0 0.0
1 1.0
00000000000
01111111110
00000000000
00000000000
00000000000
00000000000
00000000000
00000000000
00000000000
00000000000
00000000000
00000000000
00000000000
00000000000
00000000000
00000000000
00000000000
00000000000
01111111110
00000000000
1 1.0 0.0 8.0 0.00
1 1.0
0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.
0. 100. 100. 100. 100. 100. 100. 100. 100. 100. 0.
0.
0.
0.
0
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0. 97. 97. 97. 97. 97. 97. 97. 97. 97. 0.
4-9
-------
Test Problems
0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
8
8
8
7
2
0
0
1
5
7
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
0
0
0
0
0
1
30
35
30
26
18
9
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
8
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
8
8
8
8
8
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
8
8
8
7
2
0
0
1
5
7
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4-10
-------
Figure 4.1 Contaminant and Oxygen Plumes for Test Problem #1
Figure 4.2 Comparison of Biodegraded and Non-Biodegraded Plumes for Test Problem #1
Figure 4.3 Comparison of Biodegraded and Non-Biodegraded Plumes for Test Problem #3
4-11
-------
5. References
Alexander, M., 1975, "Environmental and Microbiological Problems Arising from Recalcitrant Molecules",
Microb. Ecol., 2, 17.
Angelakis, A. N. and Rolston, D. E., 1985, "Transient Movement and Transformation of Carbon Species in Soil
During Wastewater Application", Water Resour. Res., 21, 1 141.
Baehr, A. and Corapcioglu, M. Y., 1985, "A Predictive Model for Pollution from Gasoline in Soils and Ground
Water", in Proc. Petroleum Hydrocarbons and Organic Chemicals in Ground Water - Prevention,
Detection, and Restoration, Nov. 1984, Houston, Texas, National Water Well Association, Worthington,
Ohio, 144.
Bear, J., 1979, Hydraulics of Ground Water, McGraw Hill, New York.
Borden, R. C. and Bedient, P. B., 1986, "Transport of Dissolved Hydrocarbons Influenced by Oxygen-Limited
Biodegradation: 1. Theoretical Development", Water Resources Res., 22, 1973.
Borden, R. C., Bedient, P. B., Lee, M. D., Ward, C. H. and Wilson, J. T., 1986, "Transport of Dissolved
Hydrocarbons Influenced by Oxygen-Limited Biodegradation: 2. Field Application", Water Resources Res., 22,
1983.
Brown, R. A., Norris, R. D. and Brubaker, G. R., 1985, "Aquifer Restoration with Enhanced Bioreclamation",
Pollution Engineering, 25.
Brown, R. A., Norris, R. D. and Raymond, R. L, 1984, "Oxygen Transport in Contaminated Aquifers", in Proc.
Petroleum Hydrocarbons and Organic Chemicals in Ground Water - Prevention, Detection, and
Restoration, Nov. 1984, Houston, Texas, National Water Well Association, Worthington, Ohio, 421.
Federle, T. W., Dobbins, D. C., Thornton-Manning, J. R. and Jones, D. D., 1986, "Microbial Biomass, Activity,
and Community Structure in Subsurface Soils", Ground Water, 24, 365.
Freeze, R. A. and Cherry, R. B., 1979, Ground Water, Prentice Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.
Ghiorse, W. C. and Balkwill, B. L, 1983, "Enumeration and Morphological Characterization of Bacteria
Indigenous to Subsurface Environments", Dev. Ind. Microbiol., 24, 213.
Ghiorse, W. C. and Balkwill, B. L, 1985, "Microbial Characterization of Subsurface Environments," in Ground
Water Quality, Ward, C. H., Gieger, W. and McCarty, P. L., editors, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, NY,
387.
Golden Software, Inc., 1987, SURFER, Version 3.00, Golden, CO.
Hirsch, P. and Rades-Rohkohl, E., 1983, "Microbial Diversity in a Ground Water Aquifer in Northern Germany",
Dev. Ind. Microbiol., 24, 183.
Konikow, L. F. and Bredehoeft, J. D., 1978, Computer Model of Two-Dimensional Solute Transport and
Dispersion in Ground Water, Automated Data Processing and Computations Techniques of Water Resources
Investigations of the U. S. Geological Society, Washington, D.C.
Kosson, D. S., Agnihotri, G. C. and Ahlert, R. C., 1985, "Modeling of Microbially Active Soil Columns", in
Computer Applications in Water Resour. ASCE Torno, H. C., Ed., American Society of Civil Engineers, New
York.
Kuhn, E. P., Colberg, P. J., Schnoor, J. L., Warner, O., Zehnder, A. J. B. and Schwarzenbach, R. P., 1985,
"Microbial Transformation of Substituted Benzenes During Infiltration of River Water to Ground Water:
Laboratory Column Studies", Environ. Sci. &Technol., 19, 961.
5-1
-------
Lee, M. D. and Ward, C. H., 1985, "Micr-bial Ecology of a Hazardous Waste Disposal Site: Enhancement of
Biodegradation", in Proc., 2nd Int'l Conference on Ground Water Quality Research, Durham, N. N. and
Redelfs, A. E., editors, Tulsa, Oklahoma, March 1984, OSU Printing Services, Stillwater, OK, 25.
Molz, F. J., Widdowson, M. A. and Benefield, L D., 1986, "Simulation of Micrcobial Growth Dynamics Coupled
to Nutrient and Oxygen Transport in Porous Media", Water Resour. Res., 22, 1207.
Raymond, R. L, 1974, Reclamation of Hydrocarbon Contaminated Ground Water, U. S. Patent 3, 846, 290,
Nov. 5.
Raymond, R. L., Jamison, V. W. and Hudson, J. O., 1975, "Final Report on Beneficial Stimulation of Bacterial
Activity in Ground Water Containing Petroleum Products", Committee on Environmental Affairs, American
Petroleum Institute, Washington, D.C.
Rifai, H. S. and P. B. Bedient, 1987, "BIOPLUME II - Two-Dimensional Modeling for Hydrocarbon
Biodegradation and In Situ Restoration," Proceedings, NWWA/API Conference on Petroleum Hydrocarbons
and Organic Chemicals in Ground Water- Prevention, Detection, and Restoration, Houston, Texas, National
Water Well Association, Dublin, Ohio, (submitted).
Suflita, J. M. and Gibson. S. A., 1985, "Biodegradation of Haloaromatic Substrates in a Shallow Anoxic Ground
Water Quality Research," in Proc. 2nd Int'l Conference on Ground Water Quality Research, Durham, N. N.
and Redelfs, A. E., Eds., Tulsa, Oklahoma, March 1984, OSU University Printing Services, Stillwater,
Oklahoma, 30.
Suflita, J. M. and Miller, G. D., 1985, "Microbial Metabolism of Chlorophenolic Compounds in Ground Water
Aquifers", Environ. Toxicol. Chem., 4, 751.
Thomas, J. M., Lee, M. D., Bedient, P. B., Borden, R. C., Canter, L. W. and Ward, C. H., 1987, Leaking
Underground Storage Tanks: Remediation with Emphasis on In-Situ Biorestoration, Final Report,
Cooperative Agreement No. CR-812808, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, R. S. Kerr Environmental
Laboratory, Ada, OK, p. 143.
White, D. C., Smith, G. A., Gehron, M. J., Parker, J. H., Findlay, R. H., Martz, R. F. and Fredrickson, H. L.,
1983, "The Ground Water Aquifer Microbiota: Biomass, Community Structure, and Nutritional Status", Dev. Ind.
Microbiol., 24, 204
Wilson, J. T., McNabb, J. F., Balkwill, D. L. and Ghiorse, W. C., 1983, "Enumeration and Characterization of
Bacteria Indigenous to a Shallow Water-Table Aquifer", Ground Water, 21, 134.
Wilson, B. H. and Rees, J. F., 1986, "Biotransformation of Gasoline Hydrocarbons in Methanogenic Aquifer
Material", in Proc. NWWA/API Conference on Petroleum Hydrocarbons and Organic Chemicals in
Ground Water - Prevention, Detection, and Restoration, Nov. 1984, Houston, Texas, National Water Well
Association, Worthington, Ohio, 128.
Wilson, J. T. and Ward, C. H., 1987, "Opportunities for Bioreclamation of Aquifers Contaminated with
Petroleum Hydrocarbons," Dev. Ind. Microbiol., 27, 109.
5-2
-------
Appendix A: Data Input Formats
Card Column
1 1-80
2 1-4
5-8
9-12
13-16
17-20
21-24
25-28
29-32
33-36
37-40
Format
10A8
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
The possible ranges which a value may take are
a lower bound and Y is an upper bound. The form
bound.
Card Column
2 41-44
Format
14
Variable
TITLE
NTIM
NPMP
NX
NY
NPMAX
NPNT
NITP
NUMOBS
ITMAX
NREC
Definition
Description of problem
Maximum number of time steps in a
pumping period (1..100)*.
Number of pumping periods. If NPMP > 1,
then data set 11 must be completed.
Number of nodes in the x direction (3.. 20).
Number of nodes in the y direction (3.. 30).
Maximum number of particles (1..8100).
Time step interval for printing hydraulic
and chemical output data (1...).
Number of iteration parameters (usually
Number of observation points to be
specified in a following data set (0..5).
Maximum allowable number of iterations in
ADIP (usually 100.. 200).
Number of pumping or injection wells to be
specified in a following data set (0..50).
indicated in parentheses. The form (X..Y) indicates that X is
(X...) indicates that X is a lower bound and there is no upper
Variable
NPTPND
Definition
Initial number of particles per node
45-48
49-52
53-56
14
14
14
(4,5,8,9).
NCODES Number of node identification codes to be
specified in afollowing data set (1..9).
NPNTMV Particle movement interval (IMOV) for
printing chemical output data (0 to print
only at end of time steps).
NPNTVL Option for printing computedvelocities
(0=do not print; 1=print for first time step;
2=print for all time steps).
A-1
-------
57-60
61-64
65-68
69-72
14
14
14
14
NPNTD Option for printing computed dispersion
equation coefficients (0=do not print;
1=print for first time step; 2=print for all
time steps).
NPDELC Option for printing computed changes in
concentration (0=do not print; 1=print).
NPNCHV Option to punch velocity data (0=do not
punch; 1 =punch the node velocities on
unit 7).
NREACT Option for retardation and decay
(0=retardation factor is equal to 1 and no
decay; 1=retardation factor > 1 and/or
decay).
1-5
6-10
11-15
16-20
21-25
26-30
31-35
36-40
41-45
46-50
51-55
56-60
G5.0
G6.0
G5.0
G5.0
G5.0
G5.0
G5.0
G5.0
G5.0
G5.0
G5.0
G5.0
PINT Pumping period in years (0.01..99.99).
TOL Convergence criteria in ADIP (usually <
0.01).
POROS Effective porosity (0.01..1).
BETA Characteristic length (longitudinal
dispersivity) in feet (0.01..99.99)
S Storage coefficient (set S=0 for steady flow
problems).
TIMX Time increment multiplier for transient flow
problems (0.01..99.99). TIMX is
disregarded if S=0.
TINIT Size of initial time step in seconds (0...).
UNIT is disregarded if S=0.
XDEL Width of finite difference cell in the x
direction in feet (0.1..999.9).
YDEL Width of finite difference cell in the y
direction in feet (0.1..999.9).
DLTRAT Ratio of transverse to longitudinal
dispersivity (0.001..1).
CELDIS Maximum cell distance perparticle move
(0.001..1).
ANFCTR Ratio of Tyy to TX,, (0.001..9.999)
A-2
-------
Free Format DK Distribution coefficient (L3/M).
(separated by spaces RHOB Bulk density of the solid (M/L3).
or commas) THALF Half-life of the solute (seconds).
DEC1 Anaerobic decay coefficient (day1)
DEC2 Reaeration coefficient (day1).
A-3
-------
Data
Set
Number Format Variable
of Lines
Definition
NUMOBS 212
IXOBS,
IYOBS
Coordinates of observation points.
This data set is not used if
NUMOBS=0.
NREC
2I2.3G8.2 IX, IY
REC
CNRECH
CNRECO
Coordinates of pumping (+) or
injection (-) wells for contaminant
or oxygenated water
Pumping/injection rate in cfs
Concentration of injected
contaminated water
Concentration of injected
oxygenated water
1 or NY
11
G10.0
20G4. 1
INPUT
FCTR
VPRM
Parameter card for transmissivity
(0=constant transmissivity is
defined by FCTR; 1=transmissivity
is read from following array).
Constant transmissivity in ft2/s
OR factor to multiply
transmissivity array.
Array for temporary storage of
transmissivity data in ft2/s. For
an anisotropic array, enter the
values of Txx and the values for
Tyy will be computed by
multiplying by ANFCTR.
1 or NY
11
G10.0
20G3.0
INPUT
FCTR
THCK
Parameter card for thickness
(0=constant thickness is def ined
by FCTR; 1=thickness is read from
following array).
Constant thickness in feet, OR
factor to multiply thickness array.
Array of saturated thickness in
feet.
A-4
-------
Data
Set
Number
of Lines
Format
Variable
Definition
1 or NY
11
G10.0
20G4.1
INPUT
FCTR
RECH
Parameter card for recharge
(0=constant recharge is defined by
FCTR; 1=recharge is read from
following array).
Constant diffuse recharge (-) or
discharge (+) in ft/s OR factor to
multiply recharge array.
Array of diffuse recharge (-) or
discharge (+) in ft/s.
1 or NY
11
G10.0
2011
INPUT Parameter card for node
identification (0=all nodes
identified by FCTR; 1=node
identifications in following array)
FCTR Node identification OR factor to
multiply node identification array.
NODEID Node identification matrix (used
to define constant-head nodes or
other boundary conditions and
stresses).
NCODES
12
4G10.2
ICODE Instructions for using the NODEID
array. When NODEID= ICODE. then
the following factors are set.
Otherwise, the values remain set
as they were previously.
FCTR 1 Leakance
FCTR2 Concentration of contaminated
water
FCTR4 Concentration of oxygenated
water
FCTR3 Diffuse recharge (-) or discharge
A-5
-------
Data
Set
Number
of Lines
Format
Variable
Definition
12
OVERRD If OVERRD=0, then the value of
RECH is not changed. If OVERRD
is nonzero, then the value of
RECH is set to FCTR3.
1 or NY
11
G10.0
INPUT
FCTR
20G4.0
WT
Parameter card for water table
(0=constant water table defined by
FCTR; 1=water table is read from
following array).
Initial water table, potentiometric
elevation, or constant head in
stream or source bed in feet OR
factor to multiply water table
array.
Array of initial water table,
potentiometric elevation, or
constant head in stream or source
bed in feet.
1 or NY
11
INPUT
G10.0
20G4.0
FCTR
CONG
Parameter card for initial
contaminant concentration
(0=constant concentration def ined
by FCTR; 1=contaminant
concentration is read from
following array).
Initial contaminant concentration
in aquifer OR factor to multiply
contaminant concentration array.
Array of initial contaminant
concentration in aquifer.
10
1 or NY
11
INPUT
G10.0
20G4.0
FCTR
CONC1
Parameter card for initial oxygen
concentration (0=constant
concentration defined by FCTR;
1=oxygen concentration is read
from following array).
Initial oxygen concentration in
aquifer OR factor to multiply
oxygen concentration array.
Array of initial oxygen
concentration in aquifer.
A-6
-------
11
11
ICHK
1014,
3G5.0
NTIM
NPNT,
NITP,
UMAX,
NREC,
NPNTMV,
NPNTVL,
NPNTD,
NPDELC,
NPNCHV,
PINT,
Tl MX,
UNIT
Parameter to check whether any revisions
are desired (1=revision is desired, more
data to follow; 0=no revision desired, end
of data set). This data set allows 13 timing,
printing, and pumping variables to be
revised for each pumping period. Data set
11 can only be used if NPMP > 1. The
sequence of cards in this data set must be
repeated NPMP-1 times (for each pumping
period after the first).
Previously defined variables
for cards 2 and 3 which will
be revised for the next pumping
period. This card is used
only if ICHK= 1.
NREC
2I2,
3G8.2
IX.IY.REC, Previously defined variables
CNRECH, for data set 2 which will
CNRECO be revised for the next pumping
period. This card is used only if
ICHK= 1 and NREC > 0.
A-7
-------
APPENDIX B: Output Data for Test Problem #1
BIOPLUME II
CONTAMINANT TRANSPORT UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF OXYGEN LIMITED BIODEGRADATION
TEST PROBLEM #l - NATURAL BIODEGRADATION
INPUT DATA
GRID DESCRIPTORS
NX (NUMBER OF COLUMNS) = 11
NY (NUMBER OF ROWS) = 20
XDEL (X-DISTANCE IN FEET) = 50.0
YDEL (Y-DISTANCE IN FEET) = 50.0
TIME PARAMETERS
NTIM (MAX. NO. OF TIME STEPS) = 1
NPMP (NO. OF PUMPING PERIODS) = 1
PINT (PUMPING PERIOD IN YEARS) = 6.000
TIMX (TIME INCREMENT MULTIPLIER) = 0.00
TINIT (INITIAL TIME STEP IN SEC.) = 0.
HYDROLOGIC AND CHEMICAL PARAMETERS
S (STORAGE COEFFICIENT) = 0.000000
POROS (EFFECTIVE POROSITY) = 0.300
BETA (LONGITUDINAL DISPERSIVITY) = 10.0
DLTRAT (RATIO OF TRANSVERSE TO
LONGITUDINAL DISPERSIVITY) = 0.10
ANFCTR (RATIO OF T-YY TO T-XX) = 1.000000
EXECUTION PARAMETERS
NITP (NO. OF ITERATION PARAMETERS) = 7
TOL (CONVERGENCE CRITERIA-ADIP) = 0.0010
ITMAX(MAX.NO.OF ITERATIONS-ADIP) = 100
CELDIS (MAX.CELL DISTANCE PER MOVE
OF PARTICLES - M.O.C.) = 0.500
NPMAX (MAX. NO. OF PARTICLES) = 2000
NPTPND (NO. PARTICLES PER NODE) = 9
B-1
-------
OUTPUT DATA FOR TEST PROBLEM #1
PROGRAM OPTIONS
NPNT (TIME STEP INTERVAL FOR
COMPLETE PRINTOUT) = 1
NPNTMV (MOVE INTERVAL FOR CHEM.
CONCENTRATION PRINTOUT) = 0
NPNTVL (PRINT OPTION-VELOCITY
0=NO;
1=FIRST TIME STEP;
2=ALL TIME STEPS) = 0
NPNTD (PRINT OPTION-DISP.COEF.
0=NO;
1=FIRST TIME STEP;
2=ALL TIME STEPS) = 0
NUMOBS (NO. OF OBSERVATION WELLS
FOR HYDROGRAPH PRINTOUT) = 1
NREC (NO. OF PUMPING WELLS) = 1
NCODES (FOR NODE IDENT.) = 1
NPNCHV (PUNCH VELOCITIES) = 0
NPDELC (PRINT OPT.-CONC. CHANGE) = 0
REACTION TERMS
DK (DISTRIBUTION COEFFICIENT) = O.OOOOOE+00
RHOB (BULK DENSITY OF SOLIDS) = O.OOOOOE+00
RF (RETARDATION FACTOR) = 0.10000E+01
THALF (HALF LIFE OF DECAYJN SEC) = O.OOOOOE+00
DECAY (DECAY CONSTANT=LN 2/THALF) = O.OOOOOE+00
DECAY TERMS
DEC1 (ANAEROBIC DECAY COEFF. ) = O.OOOOOE+00
DEC2 (REAERATION DECAY COEFF.) = O.OOOOOE+00
B-2
-------
OUTPUT DATA FOR TEST PROBLEM #1
STEADY-STATE FLOW
TIME INTERVAL (IN SEC) FOR SOLUTE-TRANSPORT SIMULATION = 0.18935E+09
LOCATION OF OBSERVATION WELLS
NO. X Y
1 5 10
LOCATION OF PUMPING WELLS
X Y RATE(IN CFS) CONG. CONC(02)
6 6 -0.0002 100.00 0.00
AREA OF ONE CELL = 2500.
X-Y SPACING:
50.000
50.000
B-3
-------
OUTPUT DATA FOR TEST PROBLEM
TRANSMISSIVITY MAP (FT*Ft/SEC)
O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00 2.50E-03 2.50E-03 2.50E-03 2.50E-03 2.50E-03 2.50E-03 2.50E-03 2.50E-03 2.50E-03 O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00 2.50E-03 2.50E-03 2.50E-03 2.50E-03 2.50E-03 2.50E-03 2.50E-03 2.50E-03 2.50E-03 O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00 2.50E-03 2.50E-03 2.50E-03 2.50E-03 2.50E-03 2.50E-03 2.50E-03 2.50E-03 2.50E-03 O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00 2.50E-03 2.50E-03 2.50E-03 2.50E-03 2.50E-03 2.50E-03 2.50E-03 2.50E-03 2.50E-03 O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00 2.50E-03 2.50E-03 2.50E-03 2.50E-03 2.50E-03 2.50E-03 2.50E-03 2.50E-03 2.50E-03 O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00 2.50E-03 2.50E-03 2.50E-03 2.50E-03 2.50E-03 2.50E-03 2.50E-03 2.50E-03 2.50E-03 O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00 2.50E-03 2.50E-03 2.50E-03 2.50E-03 2.50E-03 2.50E-03 2.50E-03 2.50E-03 2.50E-03 O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00 2.50E-03 2.50E-03 2.50E-03 2.50E-03 2.50E-03 2.50E-03 2.50E-03 2.50E-03 2.50E-03 O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00 2.50E-03 2.50E-03 2.50E-03 2.50E-03 2.50E-03 2.50E-03 2.50E-03 2.50E-03 2.50E-03 O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00 2.50E-03 2.50E-03 2.50E-03 2.50E-03 2.50E-03 2.50E-03 2.50E-03 2.50E-03 2.50E-03 O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00 2.50E-03 2.50E-03 2.50E-03 2.50E-03 2.50E-03 2.50E-03 2.50E-03 2.50E-03 2.50E-03 O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00 2.50E-03 2.50E-03 2.50E-03 2.50E-03 2.50E-03 2.50E-03 2.50E-03 2.50E-03 2.50E-03 O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00 2.50E-03 2.50E-03 2.50E-03 2.50E-03 2.50E-03 2.50E-03 2.50E-03 2.50E-03 2.50E-03 O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00 2.50E-03 2.50E-03 2.50E-03 2.50E-03 2.50E-03 2.50E-03 2.50E-03 2.50E-03 2.50E-03 O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00 2.50E-03 2.50E-03 2.50E-03 2.50E-03 2.50E-03 2.50E-03 2.50E-03 2.50E-03 2.50E-03 O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00 2.50E-03 2.50E-03 2.50E-03 2.50E-03 2.50E-03 2.50E-03 2.50E-03 2.50E-03 2.50E-03 O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00 2.50E-03 2.50E-03 2.50E-03 2.50E-03 2.50E-03 2.50E-03 2.50E-03 2.50E-03 2.50E-03 O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00 2.50E-03 2.50E-03 2.50E-03 2.50E-03 2.50E-03 2.50E-03 2.50E-03 2.50E-03 2.50E-03 O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00
B-4
-------
OUTPUT DATA FOR TEST PROBLEM #1
AQUIFER THICKNESS (FT)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
25.0
25.0
25.0
25.0
25.0
25.0
25.0
25.0
25.0
25.0
25.0
25.0
25.0
25.0
25.0
25.0
25.0
25.0
0.0
0.0
25.0
25.0
25.0
25.0
25.0
25.0
25.0
25.0
25.0
25.0
25.0
25.0
25.0
25.0
25.0
25.0
25.0
25.0
0.0
0.0
25.0
25.0
25.0
25.0
25.0
25.0
25.0
25.0
25.0
25.0
25.0
25.0
25.0
25.0
25.0
25.0
25.0
25.0
0.0
0.0
25.0
25.0
25.0
25.0
25.0
25.0
25.0
25.0
25.0
25.0
25.0
25.0
25.0
25.0
25.0
25.0
25.0
25.0
0.0
0.0
25.0
25.0
25.0
25.0
25.0
25.0
25.0
25.0
25.0
25.0
25.0
25.0
25.0
25.0
25.0
25.0
25.0
25.0
0.0
0.0
25.0
25.0
25.0
25.0
25.0
25.0
25.0
25.0
25.0
25.0
25.0
25.0
25.0
25.0
25.0
25.0
25.0
25.0
0.0
0.0
25.0
25.0
25.0
25.0
25.0
25.0
25.0
25.0
25.0
25.0
25.0
25.0
25.0
25.0
25.0
25.0
25.0
25.0
0.0
0.0
25.0
25.0
25.0
25.0
25.0
25.0
25.0
25.0
25.0
25.0
25.0
25.0
25.0
25.0
25.0
25.0
25.0
25.0
0.0
0.0
25.0
25.0
25.0
25.0
25.0
25.0
25.0
25.0
25.0
25.0
25.0
25.0
25.0
25.0
25.0
25.0
25.0
25.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
B-5
-------
OUTPUT DATA FOR TEST PROBLEM #1
DIFFUSE RECHARGE AND DISCHARGE (FT/SEC)
O.OOE+00 0. OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE100 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE-00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE-00 O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00 O.OOE-00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE100 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE-00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
PERMEABILTY MAP (FT/SEC)
O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00 1.00E-04 1.00E-04 1 .OOE-04 1.00E-04 1.00E-04 1.00E-04 1.00E-04 1.00E-04 1.00E-04
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00 I.OOE-04 1.OOE-04 1.OOE-04 1.OOE-04 1.OOE-04 1.OOE-04 1.OOE-04 1.OOE-04 1.OOE-04
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00 I.OOE-04 1.OOE-04 1.OOE-04 1.OOE-04 1.OOE-04 1.OOE-04 1.OOE-04 1.OOE-04 1.OOE-04
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00 I.OOE-04 1.OOE-04 1.OOE-04 1.OOE-04 1.OOE-04 1.OOE-04 1.OOE-04 1.OOE-04 1.OOE-04
B-6
-------
OUTPUT DATA FOR TEST PROBLEM #1
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00 1.00E-04 1.00E-04 1 .OOE-04 1.00E-04 1.00E-04 1.00E-04 1.00E-04 1.00E-04 1.00E-04
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00 1.OOE-04 1.OOE-04 1 .OOE-04 1.OOE-04 1.OOE-04 1.OOE-04 1.OOE-04 1.OOE-04 1.OOE-04
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00 1.OOE-04 1.OOE-04 1 .OOE-04 1.OOE-04 1.OOE-04 1.OOE-04 1.OOE-04 1.OOE-04 1.OOE-04
O.OOE+00
O.OOE-00 1.OOE-04 1.OOE-04 1.OOE-04 1.OOE-04 1.OOE-04 1.OOE-04 1.OOE-04 1.OOE-04 1.OOE-04
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00 1.OOE-04 1.OOE-04 1 .OOE-04 1.OOE-04 1.OOE-04 1.OOE-04 1.OOE-04 1.OOE-04 1.OOE-04
O.OOE+.OO
O.OOE+00 1.OOE-04 1.OOE-04 1 .OOE-04 1.OOE-04 1.OOE-04 1.OOE-04 1.OOE-04 1.OOE-04 1.OOE-04
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00 1.OOE-04 1.OOE-04 1 .OOE-04 1.OOE-04 1.OOE-04 1.OOE-04 1.OOE-04 1.OOE-04 1.OOE-04
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00 1.OOE-04 1.OOE-04 1 .OOE-04 1.OOE-04 1.OOE-04 1.OOE-04 1.OOE-04 1.OOE-04 1.OOE-04
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00 1.OOE-04 1.OOE-04 1 .OOE-04 1.OOE-04 1.OOE-04 1.OOE-04 1.OOE-04 1.OOE-04 1.OOE-04
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00 1.OOE-04 1.OOE-04 1 .OOE-04 1.OOE-04 1.OOE-04 1.OOE-04 1.OOE-04 1.OOE-04 1.OOE-04
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00 1.OOE-04 1.OOE-04 1 .OOE-04 1.OOE-04 1.OOE-04 1.OOE-04 1.OOE-04 1.OOE-04 1.OOE-04
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00 1.OOE-04 1.OOE-04 1 .OOE-04 1.OOE-04 1.OOE-04 1.OOE-04 1.OOE-04 1.OOE-04 1.OOE-04
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00 1.OOE-04 1.OOE-04 1.OOE-04 1.OOE-04 I.OOE-04 1.OOE-04 1.OOE-04 1.OOE-04 1.OOE-04
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00 1.OOE-04 1.OOE-04 1 .OOE-04 1.OOE-04 1.OOE-04 1.OOE-04 1.OOE-04 1.OOE-04 1.OOE-04
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
NO. OF FINITE-DIFFERENCE CELLS IN AQUIFER = 162
AREA OF AQUIFER IN MODEL = 0.40500E+06 SQ. FT.
NZCRIT (MAX. NO. OF CELLS THAT CAN BE VOID OF
PARTICLES; IF EXCEEDED, PARTICLES ARE REGENERATED) = 3
B-7
-------
OUTPUT DATA FOR TEST PROBLEM #1
NODE IDENTIFICATION MAP
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
NO. OF NODE IDENT. CODES SPECIFIED = 1
THE FOLLOWING ASSIGNMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE:
CODE NO. LEAKANCE SOURCE CONC. 02 CONG RECHARGE
1 0.100E+01 0.00 8.00
B-8
-------
OUTPUT DATA FOR TEST PROBLEM #1
VERTICAL PERMEABILITY/THICKNESS (FT/(FT*SEC))
O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00 1 .OOE+00 1 .OOE+00 1 .OOE+00 1 .OOE+00 1 .OOE+00 1 .OOE+00 1 .OOE+00 1 .OOE+00 1 .OOE+00 O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE-00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00 1 .OOE+00 1 .OOE+00 1 .OOE+00 1 .OOE+00 1 .OOE+00 1 .OOE+00 1 .OOE+00 1 .OOE+00 1 .OOE+00 O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00 O.OOE+00
B-9
-------
OUTPUT DATA EOR TEST PROBLEM # 1
WATER
0.
0.
0.
100.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
97.
0.
0.
TABLE
0.
0.
100.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
97.
0.
0.
0.
0.
100.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
97.
0.
0.
100.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
97.
0.
0.
100.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
97.
0.
0.
100.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
97.
0.
0.
100.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
97.
0.
0.
100.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
97.
0.
0.
100.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
97.
0.
B-10
-------
OUTPUT DATA FOR TEST PROBLEM #1
HEAD DISTRIBUTION - ROW
NUMBER OF TIME STEPS
TIME(SECONDS)
TIME(DAYS)
TIME(VEARS)
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
100.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
97.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
100.0000000
100.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
97.0000000
97.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
100.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.000.0000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
97.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
= 0
O.OOOOOE+00
O.OOOOOE+00
O.OOOOOE+00
0.0000000
100.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
97.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
100.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
97.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
100.00
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
97.000000!
0.0000000
0.0000000 0.0000000
100.0000000 100.0000000 100.0000000
0.0000000 0.0000000
0.0000000 0.0000000
0.0000000 0.0000000
0.0000000 0.0000000
0.0000000 0.0000000
0.0000000 0.0000000
0.0000000 0.0000000
0.0000000 0.0000000
0.0000000 0.0000000
0.0000000 0.0000000
0.0000000 0.0000000
0.0000000 0.0000000
0.0000000 0.0000000
0.0000000 0.0000000
0.0000000 0.0000000
0.0000000 0.0000000
97.0000000 97.0000000 97.0000000
0.0000000 0.0000000
B-11
-------
OUTPUT DATA FOR TEST PROBLEM #1
ITERATION PARAMETERS
0.616850E-02
0.144040E-01
0.336346E-01
0.785398E-01
0.183397
0.428249
1.00000
O.OOOOOOE+00
O.OOOOOOE+00
O.OOOOOOE+00
O.OOOOOOE+00
O.OOOOOOE+00
O.OOOOOOE+00
O.OOOOOOE+00
O.OOOOOOE+00
O.OOOOOOE+00
O.OOOOOOE+00
O.OOOOOOE+00
O.OOOOOOE+00
O.OOOOOOE+00
B-12
-------
OUTPUT DATA FOR TEST PROBLEM #1
CONCENTRATION OF CONTAMINANT
NUMBER OF TIME STEPS = 0
TIME(SECONDS) = O.OOOOOE+00
CHEM.TIME(SECONDS) = O.OOOOOE+00
CHEM.TIME(DAYS) = O.OOOOOE+00
TIME(YEARS) = O.OOOOOE+00
CHEM.TIME(YEARS) = O.OOOOOE+00
NO. MOVES COMPLETED = 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
B-13
-------
OUTPUT DATA FOR TEST PROBLEM #1
CONCENTRATION OF OXYGEN
NUMBER OF TIME STEPS
0
TIME(SECONDS)
CHEM.TIME(SECONDS)
CHEM.TIME(DAVS)
TIME(YEARS)
CHEM.TIME(VEARS)
NO. MOVES COMPLETED
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
0
0
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
0
0
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
0
0
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
0
0
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
0
0
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
0
0
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
0
O.OOOOOE+00
O.OOOOOE+00
O.OOOOOE+00
O.OOOOOE+00
O.OOOOOE+00
0
0
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
0
0
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
N= 1
NUMBER OF ITERATIONS =
20
B-14
-------
OUTPUT DATA FOR TEST PROBLEM #1
HEAD DISTRIBUTION - ROW
NUMBER OF TIME STEPS =
TIME(SECONDS) = 0.18935E+09
TIME(DAYS)
=
TIME(YEARS)
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
99.9999998
0.0000000
99.8294635
0.0000000
99.6595657
0.0000000
99.4880365
0.0000000
99.3147908
0.0000000
99.1399849
0.0000000
98.9632029
0.0000000
98.7853475
0.0000000
98.6074165
0.0000000
98.4290704
0.0000000
98.2504197
0.0000000
98.0720689
0.0000000
97.8934850
0.0000000
97.7144821
0.0000000
97.5361572
0.0000000
97.3576574
0.0000000
97.1783588
0.0000000
97.0000002
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
99.9999998
99.9999998
99.8291477
99.8291477
99.6586734
99.6586734
99.4866865
99.4866865
99.3131983
99.3131983
99.1386046
99.1386046
98.9622862
98.9622862
98.7848457
98.7848457
98.6071305
98.6071305
98.4289299
98.4289299
98.2503905
98.2503905
98.0720432
98.0720432
97.8934704
97.8934704
97.7145462
97.7145462
97.5361558
97.5361558
97.3576164
97.3576164
97.1784342
97.1784342
97.0000002
97.0000002
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
99.9999998
0.0000000
99.8294635
0.0000000
99.6595657
0.0000000
99.4880365
0.0000000
99.3147908
0.0000000
99.1399849
0.0000000
98.9632029
0.0000000
98.7853475
0.0000000
98.607,4165
0.0000000
98.4290704
0.0000000
98.2504197
0.0000000
98.0720689
0.0000000
97.8934850
0.0000000
97.7144821
0.0000000
97.5361572
0.0000000
97.3576574
0.0000000
97.1783588
0.0000000
97.0000002
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.0000000
0.21915E+04
0.60000E+01
0.0000000
99.9999998
99.8302416
99.6612187
99.4909366
99.3187861
99.1429669
98.9650297
98.7863989
98.6079959
98.4293942
98.2506138
98.0721733
97.8935556
97.7145573
97.5361729
97.3576539
97.1784118
97.0000002
0.0000000
0.0000000
99.9999998
99.8310992
99.6633789
99.4955451
99.3270257
99.1476276
98.9673115
98.7874966
98.6085203
98.4296452
98.2507353
98.0722224
97.8935769
97.7145736
97.5361670
97.3576438
97.1784250
97.0000002
0.0000000
0.0000000
99.9999998
99.8315824
99.6649445
99.5007236
99.3467482
99.1528277
98.9689244
98.7880871
98.6087643
98.4297534
98.2507850
98.0722427
97.8935868
97.7145774
97.5361656
97.3576428
97.1784260
97.0000002
0.0000000
0.0000000
99.9999998
99.8310992
99.6633789
99.4955451
99.3270257
99.1476276
98.9673115
98.7874966
98.6085203
98.4296452
98.2507353
98.0722224
97.8935769
97.7145736
97.5361670
97.3576438
97.1784250
97.0000002
0.0000000
0.0000000
99.9999998
99.8302416
99.6612187
99.4909366
99.3187861
99.1429669
98.9650297
98.7863989
98.6079959
98.4293942
98.2506138
98.0721733
97.8935556
97.7145573
97.5361729
97.3576539
97.1784118
97.0000002
0.0000000
B-15
-------
OUTPUT DATA FOR TEST PROBLEM #1
HEAD DISTRIBUTION - ROW
NUMBER OF TIME STEPS
TIME(SECONDS)
TIME(DAYS)
TIME(YEARS)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
100
100
100
99
99
99
99
99
99
98
98
98
98
98
98
97
97
97
0
0
100
100
100
99
99
99
99
99
99
98
98
98
98
98
98
97
97
97
0
0
100
100
100
99
99
99
99
99
99
98
98
98
98
98
98
97
97
97
0
0
100
100
100
99
99
99
99
99
99
98
98
98
98
98
98
97
97
97
0
0.18935E+09
0.21915E+04
0.60000E+01
0
100
100
100
100
99
99
99
99
99
98
98
98
98
98
98
97
97
97
0
0
100
100
100
99
99
99
99
99
99
98
98
98
98
98
98
97
97
97
0
0
100
100
100
99
99
99
99
99
99
98
98
98
98
98
98
97
97
97
0
0
100
100
100
99
99
99
99
99
99
98
98
98
98
98
98
97
97
97
0
0
100
100
100
99
99
99
99
99
99
98
98
98
98
98
98
97
97
97
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
B-16
-------
OUTPUT DATA FOR TEST PROBLEM #1
DRAWDOWN
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-99
-99
-98
-98
-98
-98
-98
-98
-97
-97
-97
-97
-97
-97
-96
-96
0
0
0
0
-99
-99
-98
-98
-98
-98
-98
-98
-97
-97
-97
-97
-97
-97
-96
-96
0
0
0
0
-99
-99
-98
-98
-98
-98
-98
-98
-97
-97
-97
-97
-97
-97
-96
-96
0
0
0
0
-99
-99
-98
-98
-98
-98
-98
-98
-97
-97
-97
-97
-97
-97
-96
-96
0
0
0
0
-99
-99
-99
-98
-98
-98
-98
-98
-97
-97
-97
-97
-97
-97
-96
-96
0
0
0
0
-99
-99
-98
-98
-98
-98
-98
-98
-97
-97
-97
-97
-97
-97
-96
-96
0
0
0
0
-99
-99
-98
-98
-98
-98
-98
-98
-97
-97
-97
-97
-97
-97
-96
-96
0
0
0
0
-99
-99
-98
-98
-98
-98
-98
-98
-97
-97
-97
-97
-97
-97
-96
-96
0
0
0
0
-99
-99
-98
-98
-98
-98
-98
-98
-97
-97
-97
-97
-97
-97
-96
-96
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
CUMULATIVE MASS BALANCE - (IN FT**3)
RECHARGE AND INJECTION
PUMPAGE AND E-T WITHDRAWAL
CUMULATIVE NET PUMPAGE
WATER RELEASE FROM STORAGE
LEAKAGE INTO AQUIFER
LEAKAGE OUT OF AQUIFER
CUMULATIVE NET LEAKAGE
MASS BALANCE RESIDUAL
ERROR (AS PERCENT)
RATE MASS BALANCE - (IN C.F.S.)
LEAKAGE INTO AQUIFER
LEAKAGE OUT OF AQUIFER
NET LEAKAGE (QNET)
RECHARGE AND INJECTION
PUMPAGE AND E-T WITHDRAWAL
NET WITHDRAWAL (TPUM)
-0.37869E+05
O.OOOOOE+00
-0.37869E+05
O.OOOOOE+00
0.72354E+06
-0.76007E+06
-0.36531 E+05
1338.4
0.17594
0.38213E-02
-0.40142E-02
-0.19293E-03
-0.20000E-03
O.OOOOOE+00
-0.20000E-03
B-17
-------
OUTPUT DATA FOR TEST PROBLEM #1
STABILITY CRITERIA M.O.C.
FLUID VELOCITIES
VMAX = 9.32E-08
VMXBD= 1.31E-07
TMV (MAX. INJ.) = 0.43898E+08
TIMV(CELDIS) = 0.19338E+08
VMAY = 1.26E-06
VMYBD= 1.29E-06
TIMV= 1.93E+07
TIM(N) = 0.18935E+09
TIMEVELO= 0.18935E+08
TIMEDISP= 0.87852E+08
NTIMV =
NMOV =
10
TIMV =
1.89E+07
10
NTIMD =
NMOV
THE LIMITING STABILITY CRITERION IS CELDIS
NO. OF PARTICLE MOVES REQUIRED TO COMPLETE THIS TIME STEP =
10
NP
TIM(N)
NP1
TIM(N)
NP
TIM(N)
NP1
TIM(N)
NP
TIM(N)
NP1
TIM(N)
NP
TIM(N)
NPI
TIM(N)
NP
TIM(N)
NPI
TIM(N)
NP
TIM(N)
NPI
TIM(N)
NP
TIM(N)
NPI
TIM(N)
NP
TIM(N)
NPI
TIM(N)
NP
TIM(N)
1709
0.18935E+09
1709
0.18935E+09
1715
0.18935E+09
1715
0.18935E+09
1715
0.18935E+09
1715
0.18935E+09
1724
0.18935E+09
1724
0.18935E+09
1740
0.18935E+09
1740
0.18935E+09
1748
0.18935E+09
1748
0.18935E+09
1757
0.18935E+09
1757
0.18935E+09
1757
0.18935E+09
1757
0.18935E+09
1760
0.18935E+09
I MOV
TIMV
IMOV(02)
TIMV
I MOV
TIMV
IMOV(02)
TIMV
I MOV
TIMV
IMOV(02)
TIMV
I MOV
TIMV
IMOV(02)
TIMV
I MOV
TIMV
IMOV(02)
TIMV
I MOV
TIMV
IMOV(02)
TIMV
I MOV
TIMV
IMOV(02)
TIMV
I MOV
TIMV
IMOV(02)
TIMV
I MOV
TIMV
0.18935E+08
1
0.18935E+08
2
0.18935E+08
2
0.18935E+08
3
0.18935E+08
3
0.18935E+08
4
0.18935E+08
4
0.18935E+08
5
0.18935E+08
5
0.18935E+08
6
0.18935E+08
6
0.18935E+08
7
0.18935E+08
7
0.18935E+08
8
0.18935E+08
8
0.18935E+08
9
0.18935E+08
SUMTCH =
SUMTCH =
SUMTCH =
SUMTCH =
SUMTCH =
SUMTCH =
SUMTCH =
SUMTCH =
SUMTCH =
SUMTCH =
SUMTCH =
SUMTCH =
SUMTCH =
SUMTCH =
SUMTCH =
SUMTCH =
SUMTCH =
0.18935E+08
0.18935E+08
0.37869E+08
0.37869E+08
0.56804E+08
0.56804E+08
0.75738E+08
0.75738E+08
0.94673E+08
0.94673E+08
0.11 361 E+09
0.11 361 E+09
0.13254E+09
0.13254E+09
0.15148E+09
0.15148E+09
0.1 7041 E+09
B-18
-------
NP1
TIM(N)
NP
TIM(N)
NPI
TIM(N)
1760
0.18935E+09
1764
0.18935E+09
1764
0.18935E+09
IMOV(02) =
TIMV
I MOV
TIMV
IMOV(02) =
TIMV
0.18935E+08
10
0.18935E+08
10
0.18935E+08
SUMTCH= 0.17041E+09
SUMTCH= 0.18935E+09
SUMTCH= 0.18935E+09
B-19
-------
OUTPUT DATA FOR TEST PROBLEM #1
CONCENTRATION OF CONTAMINANT
NUMBER OF TIME STEPS
DELTA T
TIME(SECONDS)
CHEM.TIME(SECONDS) =
CHEM.TIME(DAYS)
TIME(YEARS)
CHEM.TIME(YEARS)
1
0.18935E+09
0.18935E+09
0.18935E+09
0.21915E+04
0.60000E+01
0.60000E+01
NO. MOVES COMPLETED
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
30
35
30
26
18
9
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
CHEMICAL MASS BALANCE
MASS IN BOUNDARIES
MASS OUT BOUNDARIES
MASS PUMPED IN
MASS PUMPED OUT
MASS LOST W. BIODEG.
MASS LOST BY RADIO. DCY
MASS LOST BY ANAER. DCY
MASS LOST RY REAER. DCY
MASS ADSORBED ON SOLIDS
INITIAL MASS ADSORBED
INFLOW MINUS OUTFLOW
INITIAL MASS DISSOLVED
PRESENT MASS DISSOLVED
CHANGE MASS DISSOLVED
CHANGE TOTL.MASS STORED
COMPARE RESIDUAL WITH NET FLUX AND
MASS BALANCE RESIDUAL
ERROR (AS PERCENT)
O.OOOOOE+00
-0.82522E-03
0.37869E+07
O.OOOOOE+00
0.78974E+06
O.OOOOOE+00
O.OOOOOE+00
O.OOOOOE+00
O.OOOOOE+00
O.OOOOOE+00
0.37869E+07
O.OOOOOE+00
0.32135E+07
0.40033E+07
0.40033E+07
MASS ACCUMULATION:
-0.21635E+06
-0.57130E+01
B-20
-------
OUTPUT DATA FOR TEST PROBLEM #1
CONCENTRATION OF OXYGEN
NUM8ER OF TIME STEPS
DELTA T
TIME(SECONDS)
CHEM.TIME(SECONDS)
CHEM.TIME(DAYS)
TIME(YEARS)
CHEM.TIME(YEARS)
NO. MOVES COMPLETED
1
0.18935E+09
0.18935E+09
0.18935E+09
0.21915E+04
0.60000E+01
0.60000E+01
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
0
0
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
0
0
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
0
0
8
8
8
8
7
2
0
0
1
5
7
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
0
0
8
8
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
8
8
8
8
8
8
0
0
8
8
8
8
7
2
0
0
1
5
7
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
0
0
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
0
0
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
0
0
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
CHEMICAL MASS BALANCE FOR OXYGEN
MASS IN BOUDARIES
MASS OUT BOUNDARIES
MASS PUMPED IN
MASS PUMPED OUT
MASS LOST W. BIODEG.
INFLOW MINUS OUTFLOW
INITIAL MASS DISSOLVED
PRESENT MASS DISSOLVED
CHANGE MASS DISSOLVED
CHANGE TOTL.MASS STORED
COMPARE RESIDUAL WITH NET FLUX AND MASS
MASS BALANCE RESIDUAL
ERROR (AS PERCENT)
COMPARE INITIAL MASS STORED WITH CHANGE
ERROR (AS PERCENT)
0.57883E+07
-0.60805E+07
O.OOOOOE+00
O.OOOOOE+00
0.23692E+07
-0.29222E+06
0.24300E+08
0.21721E+08
-0.20981 E+06
-0.20981 E+06
ACCUMULATION FOR OXVGEN:
-0.82416E+05
-0.14238E+01
IN MASS STORED FOR OXYGEN:
0.33513E+00
B-21
-------
OUTPUT DATA FOR TEST PROBLEM #1
TEST PROBLEM #1 - NATURAL BIODEGRADATION
TIME VERSUS HEAD AND CONCENTRATION AT SELECTED OBSERVATION POINTS
PUMPING PERIOD NO. 1
STEADY-STATE SOLUTION
OBS.WELL NO. X Y
1 5 10
HEAD (FT)
CONC.(MG/L) TIME (YEARS)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
0.0
98.6
98.6
98.6
98.6
98.6
98.6
98.6
98.6
98.6
98.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.000
0.600
1.200
1.800
2.400
3.000
3.600
4.200
4.800
5.400
6.000
B-22
-------
OUTPUT DATA FOR TEST PROBLEM #1
TEST PROBLEM #1 - NATURAL BIODEGRADATION
TIME VERSUS HEAD AND CONCENTRATION^) AT SELECTED OBSERVATION POINTS
PUMPING PERIOD NO. 1
STEADY-STATE SOLUTION FOR OXYGEN
OBS.WELL NO.
1
X
5
Y
10
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
HEAD (FT)
0.0
98.6
98.6
98.6
98.6
98.6
98.6
98.6
98.6
98.6
98.6
CONC.(MG/L)
8.0
8.0
8.0
8.0
8.0
7.9
7.8
7.2
6.2
4.3
0.9
TIME (YEARS)
0.000
0.600
1.200
1.800
2.400
3.000
3.600
4.200
4.800
5.400
6.000
B-23
-------
OUTPUT DATA FOR TEST PROBLEM # I
Non-biodegraded contaminant Plume for Test Problem #1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
8
8
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
32
37
31
28
20
11
4
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
8
8
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
B-24
-------
APPENDIX C: Selected Output for Test Problem #2
CONCENTRATION OF CONTAMINANT
NUMBER OF TIME STEPS = 1
DELTA T = 0.18935E+09
TIME(SECONDS) = 0.18935E+09
CHEM.TIME(SECONDS) = 0.18935E+09
CHEM.TIME(DAYS) = 0.21915E+04
TIME(YEARS) = 0.60000E+01
CHEM.TIME(YEARS) = 0.60000E+01
NO. MOVES COMPLETED = 10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
28
30
22
18
11
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
CHEMICAL MASS BALANCE
MASS IN BOUNDARIES
MASS OUT BOUNDARIES
MASS PUMPED IN
MASS PUMPED OUT
MASS LOST W. BIODEG.
MASS LOST 8Y RADIO. DCY
MASS LOST BY ANAER. DCY
MASS LOST BY REAER. DCY
MASS ADSORBED ON SOLIDS
INITIAL MASS ADSORBED
INFLOW MINUS OUTFLOW
INITIAL MASS DISSOLVED
PRESENT MASS DISSOLVED
CHANGE MASS DISSOLVED
CHANGE TOTL.MASS STORED
COMPARE RESIDUAL WITH
MASS BALANCE RESIDUAL
ERROR (AS PERCENT)
O.OOOOOE+00
-0.64388E-03
0.37869E+07
O.OOOOOE+00
0.72548E+06
O.OOOOOE+00
O.OOOOOE+00
-0.82054E+06
O.OOOOOE+00
O.OOOOOE+00
0.37869E+07
O.OOOOOE+00
0.23741 E+07
0.30996E+07
0.30996E+07
NET FLUX AND MASS ACCUMULATION:
-0.13322E+06
-0.35180E+01
C-1
-------
SELECTED OUTPUT FOR TEST PROBLEM #2
CONCENTRATION OF OXYGEN
NUMBER OF TIME STEPS
DELTA T
TIME(SECONDS)
CHEM.TIME(SECONDS)
CHEM.TIME(DAYS)
TIME(YEARS)
CHEM.TIME(YEARS)
NO. MOVES COMPLETED
0.18935E+09
0.18935E+09
0.18935E+09
0.21915E+04
0.60000E+01
0.60000E+01
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
0
0
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
0
0
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
0
0
8
8
8
8
7
3
0
0
3
6
7
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
0
0
8
8
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
8
8
8
8
8
8
0
0
8
8
8
8
7
3
0
0
3
6
7
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
0
0
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
0
0
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
0
0
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
CHEMICAL MASS BALANCE FOR OXYGEN
MASS IN BOUDARIES
MASS OUT BOUNDARIES
MASS PUMPED IN
MASS PUMPED OUT
MASS LOST W. BIODEG.
INFLOW MINUS OUTFLOW
INITIAL MASS DISSOLVED
PRESENT MASS DISSOLVED
CHANGE MASS DISSOLVED
CHANGE TOTL.MASS STORED
COMPARE RESIDUAL WITH NET FLUX AND MASS
MASS BALANCE RESIDUAL
ERROR (AS PERCENT)
COMPARE INITIAL MASS STORED WITH CHANGE
ERROR (AS PERCENT)
0.57883E+07
-0.60805E+07
O.OOOOOE+00
O.OOOOOE+00
0.21764E+07
-0.29222E+06
0.24300E+08
0.21915E+08
-0.20890E+06
-0.20890E+06
ACCUMULATION FOR OXYGEN:
-0.83328E+05
-0.14396E+01
IN MASS STORED FOR OXYGEN:
0.33884E+00
C-2
-------
SELECTED OUTPUT FOR TEST PROBLEM #2
TEST PROBLEM #2 - NATURAL BIODEGRADATION WITH REAERATION
TIME VERSUS HEAD AND CONCENTRATION AT SELECTED OBSERVATION POINTS
PUMPING PERIOD NO. 1
STEADY-STATE SOLUTION
OBS.WELL NO. X Y N HEAD (FT) CONC.(MG/L) TIME (YEARS)
1 5 10
0 0.0 0.0 0.000
1 98.6 0.0 0.600
2 98.6 0.0 1.200
3 98.6 0.0 1.800
4 98.6 0.0 2.400
5 98.6 0.0 3.000
6 98.6 0.0 3.600
7 98.6 0.0 4.200
8 98.6 0.0 4.800
9 98.6 0.0 5.400
10 98.6 0.0 6.000
C-3
-------
SELECTED OUTPUT FOR TEST PROBLEM #2
TEST PROBLEM #2 - NATURAL BIODEGRADATION WITH REAERATION
TIME VERSUS HEAD AND CONCENTRATION^) AT SELECTED OBSERVATION POINTS
PUMPING PERIOD NO. I
STEADY-STATE SOLUTION FOR OXYGEN
OBS.WELL NO. X Y N HEAD (FT) CONC.(MG/L) TIME (YEARS)
1 5 10
0 0.0 8.0 0.000
1 98.6 8.0 0.600
2 98.6 8.0 1.200
3 98.6 8.0 1.800
4 98.6 8.0 2.400
5 98.6 7.9 3000
6 98.6 7.8 3.600
7 98.6 7.4 4.200
8 98.6 6.6 4.800
9 98.6 5.3 5400
10 98.6 3.1 6.000
C-4
-------
Appendix D: Selected Output for Test Problem #3
CONCENTRATION OF CONTAMINANT
NUM8ER OF TIME STEPS
DELTA T
TIME(SECONDS)
CHEM.TIME(SECONDS)
CHEM.TIME(DAYS)
TIME(YEARS)
CHEM.TIME(YEARS)
NO. MOVES COMPLETED
CHEMICAL MASS BALANCE
MASS IN BOUNDARIES
MASS OUT BOUNDARIES
MASS PUMPED IN
MASS PUMPED OUT
MASS LOST W. BIODEG.
MASS LOST BY RADIO. DCY
MASS LOST BY ANAER. DCY
MASS LOST BY REAER. DCY
MASS ADSORBED ON SOLIDS
INITIAL MASS ADSORBED
INFLOW MINUS OUTFLOW
INITIAL MASS DISSOLVED
PRESENT MASS DISSOLVED
CHANGE MASS DISSOLVED
CHANGE TOTL.MASS STORED
0.18935E+09
0.18935E+09
0.18935E+09
0.21915E+04
0.60000E+01
0.60000E+01
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
18
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
_
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
O.OOOOOE+00
-0.27496E+02
O.OOOOOE+00
-0.30089E+07
0.50875E+06
O.OOOOOE+00
O.OOOOOE+00
O.OOOOOE+00
O.OOOOOE+00
O.OOOOOE+00
-0.30089E+07
0.32250E+07
0.19133E+06
-0.25249E+07
-0.25249E+07
D-1
-------
SELECTED OUTPUT FOR TEST PROBLEM #3
COMPARE RESIDUAL WITH NET FLUX AND MASS ACCUMULATION:
MASS BALANCE RESIDUAL = -0.48396E+06
ERROR (AS PERCENT) = O.OOOOOE+00
COMPARE INITIAL MASS STORED WITH CHANGE IN MASS STORED:
ERROR (AS PERCENT) = 0.77633E+01
D-2
-------
SELECTED OUTPUT FOR TEST PROBLEM #3
CONCENTRATION OF OXYGEN
NUMBER OF TIME STEPS
DELTA T
TIME(SECONDS)
CHEM.TIME(SECONDS)
CHEM.TIME(DAYS)
TIME(YEARS)
CHEM.TIME(YEARS)
NO. MOVES COMPLETED
1
0.18935E+09
0.18935E+09
0.18935E+09
0.21915E+04
0.60000E+01
0.60000E+01
18
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
0
0
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
0
0
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
7
7
7
8
8
8
8
8
8
0
0
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
6
5
3
5
6
7
7
7
8
8
8
0
0
8
8
8
8
8
8
7
6
3
1
0
0
0
2
3
6
7
8
0
0
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
6
5
3
5
6
7
7
7
8
8
8
0
0
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
7
7
7
8
8
8
8
8
8
0
0
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
0
0
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
CHEMICAL MASS BALANCE FOR OXYGEN
MASS IN BOUNDARIES
MASS OUT BOUNDARIES
MASS PUMPED IN
MASS PUMPED OUT
MASS LOST W. BIODEG.
INFLOW MINUS OUTFLOW
INITIAL MASS DISSOLVED
PRESENT MASS DISSOLVED
CHANGE MASS DISSOLVED
CHANGE TOTL.MASS STORED
COMPARE RESIDUAL WITH NET FLUX AND MASS
MASS BALANCE RESIDUAL
ERROR (AS PERCENT)
COMPARE INITIAL MASS STORED WITH CHANGE
ERROR (AS PERCENT)
0.51645E+07
-0.51519E+07
0.24236E+07
-0.46651 E+06
0.15262E+07
0.19698E+07
0.21769E+08
0.22443E+08
0.22001 E+07
0.22001 E+07
ACCUMULATION FOR OXYGEN:
-0.23036E+06
-0.30357E+01
IN MASS STORED FOR OXYGEN:
0.11635E+01
D-3
-------
SELECTED OUTPUT FOR TEST PROBLEM #3
TEST PROBLEM #3 - IN-SITU BIORESTORATION
TIME VERSUS HEAD AND CONCENTRATION AT SELECTED OBSERVATION POINTS
PUMPING PERIOD NO. 1
STEADY-STATE SOLUTION
OBS.WELL NO. X Y
1 5 10
HEAD (FT)
CONC.(MG/L) TIME (YEARS)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
0.0
98.4
98.4
98.4
98.4
98.4
98.4
98.4
98.4
98.4
98.4
98.4
98.4
98.4
98.4
98.4
98.4
98.4
98.4
0.0
1.8
3.5
4.9
4.8
4.8
5.0
3.3
2.5
2.1
1.7
3.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.000
0.333
0.667
1.000
1.333
1.667
2.000
2.333
2.667
3.000
3.333
3.667
4.000
4.333
4.667
5.000
5.333
5.667
6.000
D-4
-------
SELECTED OUTPUT FOR TEST PROBLEM #3
TEST PROBLEM #3 - IN-SITU BIORESTORATION
TIME VERSUS HEAD AND CONCENTRATION^) AT SELECTED OBSERVATION POINTS
PUMPING PERIOD NO. 1
STEADY-STATE SOLUTION FOR OXYGEN
OBS.WELL NO. X Y
1 5 10
HEAD (FT)
CONC.(MG/L)
TIME (YEARS)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
16
16
17
18
0.0
98.4
98.4
98.4
98.4
98.4
98.4
98.4
98.4
98.4
98.4
98.4
98.4
98.4
98.4
98.4
98.4
98.4
98.4
1.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.8
2.2
0.8
1.3
2.3
4.4
0.0
0.000
0.333
0.667
1.000
1.333
1.667
2.000
2.333
2.667
3.000
3.333
3.667
4.000
4.333
4.667
4.000
5.333
5.667
6.000
D-5
-------
liy dr etc airbon {- - )
tracer (
oxygen [ }
al biomasa X 10 (
z
o
in
u
z
o
u
Ul
O
m
100
DISTANCE R10M SOURCE
Fi
-------
\SE*D7
INPUT /
D*TA/
GENE WE
DISTRIBUTION
PWmCLESFOR
OOKTAMIMWT «*s DXYSEN
COMPUTl
CStWDEhfTl i=DP, OWE TIME
DETERWWE LEMQTHOFTIMe
FDR EJCPLICIT,
CCM^UTEGFIOUND WATER ;
MOVE
PARTtCLES
WOVEOXVBEW
PAFmCLJES
GEhEFtATE Dfl REMOVE
PARTICLES. AT
APPROPRIATE BOUNDARIES
GENERATE OR REMOTE
AT
6C3UNDAHES
COMPUTE OOHTAMlNANt
C>WCENTTt«lTK>J IN CELLS
ANDATNOOCS
CEOS
AMDATNODI5
ADJUST MASB iALAMCE
FIGURE 2.1 - Simplified Flowchart Of BIOPtUME Fl
-------
it-Hit
Section A-A Is the Ctnt&rtiriB of the Plume
I-UlS
Section B-B is tha Transvtrse Section of the Pfume
FIGURE 2.2 - Schematic of the Centerfine and
Transverse Section of a Plume
-------
1251-
^ 7S
c
O
,E 50
o
O
o
0 250 SOO 750 JQOQ 12SD 1500
Distonce Afong Centerline of Plume (feet)
250 500 730 1000 1250 1SOO
Distance Afong Centerime of Plume (feet)
Figure 2.3 Concentration Distributions for
Various Values of Hydraulic Conductivity
-------
>t
O
"O
e
c
o
O
J J
J J J J
t I
10 20 30 40 50 SO 70 BO 90 IDD
Percent Mass Biodegroded (ss)
D
TJ
0.005 i-
0,004
D.003
D.OD2
o
u
0,000
1 i J
I i 1 I i I
10 20 3tJ 40 SD m 70 BO 90 10D
Percent Mass Biodegroded
Figure 2.4a - Variation of Brodegraded Mass
with Various Parameters
-------
£ 6
c
O
+
O
"
20 JO 40 50 10 70 flO
Percent Mass Biodegroded
90 100
0.8
0.7
.*; o.s
o
0,4
D_
0,1
V
| 1
| 1 1 1
1
J I
0 10 20 30 40 50 10 70 10 SO 100
Percent Moss Biodegraded (SB)
Figure 2.4b Variation of Biodegraded Mass
with Various Parameters
-------
501-
!
o
-g 10
O
J J I I I L
I I I
I i I
0 J5Q 500 750 1000 1Z50 1500
Distance Along Centerline of Plurne (feet)
"1, ^ u
I
c
sp 4
CJi
O 2
JjJl \J 1 I J t L/ L L/ I I
0 250 50D 750 1000 1250 1500
Distance Along Centerline of Plume (feet)
Figure 2.5 Concentration Distributions for
Various Values of Retardation
-------
f * 3 ft
- 9 ft
$ 10 ft
a
i j I
250 500 7SO 10 DO 1250
Distance Afong CenteHlne of Plume (ft)
150D
o*
E
X
0
i i i i j i i \i
J t
t t I
250
500 750 1000 If W 1500
Distance Afong Centerline of Plume (ft)
Figure 2,6 Concentration Distributions for
Various Values of Longitudinal Dispersivity
-------
10
i
6
>, §
-M
i
,5: *
u 4
a)
o_ 3
5 2
i
G1 n
C °|
o
I i I
I I I -L--1 Jill
10 20 30 4D 50 60 70 BO 90
Percent Moss Biodegraded (»)
100
.2 i
a
J _L
I t I
20
30 40 50 iO 70 BO BO 100
Percent Mass Biocfegraded (si)
Figure 2,7 Variation of Biodegraded Mass
with Disperslvity
-------
SQr-
+t 30
C
D
'= tO
o
4-J
o
I* - t ft
I 1.1
0 25 D 50 D 75Q 1000
Distance Along Transverse Section of Plume (ft)
I
CJ"
E 6
O
Jf . I
t i I i i
0 200 400 600 SOO 1OOO
Distance Along Transverse Section of Plume (ft)
Figure 2.8 Concentration Distributions for
Various Values of Transverse Disperslvity
-------
50 r-
0 250 500 750 1DOO 1250
Distance Along Centerlhe of Plume (ft)
1500
I
O
0 250 500 750 1000 1250
Distance Along Centerline of Plume (ft)
j
1SDQ
Figure 2.9 Concentration Distributions for
Various Values of Porosity
-------
250 500 750 1000 1250 150D
Distance Along Centerline of Plume (feet)
25
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
6
9
to
11
How
(ironn Center Hut) » 35, 25, 15, 5
I ( I J 1 I I J I I ] ] I
I I
I 2 3 4 5 S 7 i 910111213141S161710192G
BJodegroded Contaminant Plunrie
i
2
3
4
5
E
7
8
t
10
11
- Contours (from eantar oirt) ^ 1, J, 5, 7 mg/L
_| I I 1 i I t 3 > I J 1 1 1 J J J
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 6 910111213141S16171B19ZO
Oxygen Plume
FIGURE 4.1 Contaminant and Oxygen
Plumes for Test Problem
-------
1
2
J
4
5
6
7
B
9
1C
11
»
n (from center out) 35. 25, 15, 5 mtj/l
i » i » J J i J i i [ i i i
1 2 3 4 5 S 7 & 9 10 11 12 13 14 t5 16 17 IB 19 10
Biodegraded Contaminant Plume
3
4
5
6
7
a
3
10
11
Flew
Contours (from center cut) p- 35, 25, 15,. 5 mg/l
i I i i i r 1 > i i J J i J i F i t
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 S1Dl1l2l3l4151G17iai920
Non-Biodegroded Contaminant Plume
FIGURE 4,2 Comparison of Biodegroded and
Non Biodegraded Piumes for Test Problem
-------
3
4
5
£
7
a
9
10
11
Flow
J i
(from c«nler out) 5> 4r 3, 2, 1 ifig/1
I I 3 I I I i I I I I I I I I I
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 B 9101112131*151617181620
Biodegraded Contaminant Plume
i
2
J
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
- Contour*
cinter put) » 5, 4, 3, 2. 1 mg/L
J..J J . i J
i i i i i . J
j L
1 2345176 t tO 11 12 13 f4 15 16 1? IS 11 2D
Non-Biodegraded Contaminant Plume
FIGURE 4,3 - Comparison of Biodegraded and
Non-BIodegraded Plumes for Test Problem #3
------- |