Determination of Active Porosity in the Field to Solve Problems of Protection of Groundwater Against Pollution

  • Alexander Vladilinovich Rastorguev
Part of the Engineering Materials and Processes book series (EMP)


When justifying the remediation projects of aquifers from pollution, as a rule, field studies are in preference. In comparison with laboratory experiments, they cover a larger volume of rocks that contain groundwater, and therefore better reflect the average properties of the reservoir. The most important parameter determined in field trials is the porosity. It determines migration velocity of the contamination front and characterizes the amount of pollutants in the reservoir, etc. Depending on the objectives of the study, it can be determined under field conditions in different ways: injection of chemical or thermal indicators, or vice versa pumping or injection–pumping. There are examples of three studies presented below. In the first example, one well-experienced results of injection–pumping of clean water into the contaminated aquifer are presented. As a result, the active porosity of gravel and pebble reservoir with sand filling is equal to 0.15. The data obtained by the experience have been required to support the interception of contaminated flow. The second example shows the results of pumping heated water into the reservoir folded by fractured carbonate sediments (limestones and dolomites). The resulting value of the active porosity is 0.005. Field trial was needed to validate the use of groundwater for cooling of process equipment. The third example is related to the processing of man-made pumping oil. As a result, we obtained porosity of 0.39, residual water saturation of 0.05, and residual oil saturation of 0.25. The need to determine the parameters has been associated with the need to optimize the remediation works.


Hydraulic Head Observation Well American Petroleum Institute Pilot Hole Nonaqueous Phase Liquid 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    Hall SH, Luttrell SP, Cronin WE (1991) Ground Water 29(2):171Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Zheng C, Wang PP (1998) MT3DMS, a modular three-dimensional multispecies transport model for simulation of advection, dispersion and chemical reactions of contaminants in groundwater systems. Documentation and user’s guide, Departments of Geology and Mathematics, University of Alabama, 1998Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Zheng C, Bennett GB (2002) Applied contaminant transport modeling, 2nd edn. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    McDonald MC, Harbaugh AW (1998) MODFLOW, a modular three-dimensional finite difference ground-water flow model. U.S. Geological Survey, Open-file report 83-875Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lauverie HA (1955) Appl Sci Res Sect A 5(2–3):145 Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kuranov PN, Rastorguev AV (2004) Solving groundwater problems. In: International conference “MODFLOW and more”, Karlovy Vary, Czech Rep, p 207, Sept 2004Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Charbeneau RJ (2003) Models for desing of free-product recovering systems for petroleum hydrocarbon liquids. Regulatory analysis and scientific affairs department, API publication number 4729, American Petroleum Institute, Washington DC, 2003Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Charbeneau RJ, Johns RT, Lake LW, McAdams III MJ (2000) Ground Water Monit Rem 20(3):147Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    van Genuchten MTh (1980) Soil Sci Soc Am J 44:892Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Parker JC, Lenhard RJ (1989) Transp Porous Med 5:187Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Hydrogeology, Faculty of GeologyLomonosov Moscow State UniversityMoscowRussia

Personalised recommendations