Environmental Earth Sciences

, Volume 61, Issue 7, pp 1531–1540 | Cite as

Effect of fracture zone on DNAPL transport and dispersion: a numerical approach

  • I. Dennis
  • J. Pretorius
  • G. SteylEmail author
Original Article


Two numerical simulation techniques have been used to identify a suitable method to assist in the characterization of DNAPL movement within fractured porous rock aquifers. Both MODFLOW and UTCHEM software modeling suites were used to simulate different scenarios in fracture dip and hydraulic conductivities. The complexity and the physical structure of fracture characterization were shown to have a significant effect on modeling results, to the extent that fracture zone should be characterized fully before simulation models are used for DNAPL simulations. Sensitivity analysis was conducted on both the hydraulic conductivity and fracture dip values. DNAPL movement in the subsurface showed a high sensitivity to fracture dip variation.


DNAPL Fracture dip Numerical simulation Hydraulic conductivity 



We wish to gratefully acknowledge the University of the Free State for the release of background information to complete this study. Prof. G. van Tonder is also thanked for his valuable discussions and guidance in this matter.


  1. Anderson MR, Johnson RL, Pankow JF (1992) Dissolution of dense chlorinated solvents into groundwater, 3. Modeling contaminant plumes from fingers and pools of solvent. Environ Sci Technol 26(5):901–908CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bear J, Verruijt A (1992) Modelling groundwater flow and pollution. D. Reidel, Dordrecht, HollandGoogle Scholar
  3. Botha JF, Verwey JP, Van der Voort I, Vivier JJP, Buys J, Colliston WP, Loock JC (1998) Karoo aquifers: their geology, geometry, and physical properties. WRC Report 487/1/98. Water Research Commission, PretoriaGoogle Scholar
  4. Butler G, Jin M (1996) Application of the UTCHEM simulator to DNAPL characterization and remediation problems. Report prepared for the Center for Petroleum and Geosystems Engineering, SeptemberGoogle Scholar
  5. Chang L-C, Chen H-H, Shan H-Y, Tsai J-P (2009) Effect of connectivity and wettability on the relative permeability of NAPLs. Environ Geol 56:1437–1447CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chesnaux R (2008) Analytical closed-form solutions for assessing pumping cycles, times, and costs requireded for NAPL remediation. Environ Geol 55:1381–1388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dennis I, Van Tonder GJ, Riemann K (2002) Risk-based decision tool for managing and protecting groundwater resources. WRC Report No 969/1/01, Water Research Commission, Pretoria, South AfricaGoogle Scholar
  8. EPA (2003) The DNAPL remediation challenge: is there a case for source depletion? EPA/600/R-03/143Google Scholar
  9. EPA (2007) Synthesis report on five dense, nonaqueous-phase liquid (Dnapl). Remediation projects, EPA/600/R-07/066Google Scholar
  10. Gebrekristos RA, Pretorius JA, Usher BH. Manual for site assessment at DNAPL contaminated sites in South Africa, WRC Report No 1501/2/08, ISBN 978-1-77005-662-6, SET NO 978-1-77005-657-2Google Scholar
  11. Grant GP, Gerhard JI (2004) Sensitivity of predicted DNAPL source zone longevity to mass transfer correlation model.In: R.N. Young and H.R. Thomas (eds). Geoenvironmental Engineering: Integrated management of groundwater and contaminated land. Telford Publishing, London, pp 59–67Google Scholar
  12. Kamon M, Endo K, Kawabata J, Inui T, Katsumi T (2004) Two-dimensional DNAPL migration affected by groundwater flow in unconfined aquifer. J Hazard Mater 110:1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Keuper BH, Wealthall GP, Smith JWN, Leharne SA, Lerner DN (2003) An illustrated handbook of DNAPL transport and fate in the subsurface. Environment agency R&D Publication, 133 EA, BristolGoogle Scholar
  14. Lee KY, Chrysikopoulos CV (1995) Numerical modeling of three-dimensional migration from dissolution of multicomponent NAPL pools in saturated porous media. Environ Geol 26:157–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lemke LD, Abriola LM (2003) Predicting DNAPL entrapment and recovery: the influence of hydraulic property correlation. Stoch Environ Res Risk Assess 17:408–418CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Pankow JF, Cherry JA (1996) Dense chlorinated solvents and other DNAPLs in groundwater. Waterloo Press, OntarioGoogle Scholar
  17. Reddy KR, Tekola L (2004) Remediation of DNAPL source zones in groundwater using air sparging. Land Contam Reclam 12(2):67–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Reynolds DA, Kueper BH (2001) Multiphase flow and transport in fractured clay/sand sequences. J Contam Hydrol 51:41–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Riemann K, van Tonder G (2002) Different approaches to analyzing single-well and multiple-well tracer tests in fractured-rock aquifers In: A.N. Findikakis (ed). Proceedings of the international groundwater symposium, Berkeley, USAGoogle Scholar
  20. Slough KJ, Sudicky EA, Forsyth PA (1999) Numerical simulation of multiphase flow and phase partitioning in discretely fractured geologic media. J Contam Hydrol 40:107–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Usher BH, Pretorius JA, van Tonder GJ (2006) Management of a Karoo fractured-rock aquifer system: kalkveld water user association (WUA). Water SA 32(1):9–19Google Scholar
  22. UTCHEM (2000) Technical documentation for UTCHEM-9.0: a three-dimensional chemical flood simulator, vol 2. The University of Texas at Austin, TexasGoogle Scholar
  23. Weaver JMC, Talma AS, Cavé LC (1999) Geochemistry and isotopes for resource evaluation in the fractured rock aquifers of the table mountain group, Water Research Commission, South Africa. WRC Report No. 1999 481/1/99Google Scholar
  24. Zheng C (1990) MT3D, A modular three-dimensional transport model for simulation of advection, dispersion and chemical reactions of contaminants in groundwater systems. Report to the US. Environmental Protection Agency Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory, Ada, OklahomaGoogle Scholar
  25. Zheng C (2004) Model Viewer: a three-dimensional visualization tool for groundwater modelers (software review). Ground Water 42(2):164–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for Groundwater StudiesUniversity of the Free StateBloemfonteinSouth Africa
  2. 2.Department of ChemistryUniversity of the Free StateBloemfonteinSouth Africa

Personalised recommendations