Comparison of recharge from drywells and infiltration basins: A modeling study

JOURNAL OF HYDROLOGY

卷:594

Article

Sasidharan, Salini^1,2  Bradford, Scott A.²  Simunek, Jiri¹  Kraemer, Stephen R.³ 

[1] Univ Calif Riverside, Dept Environm Sci, Riverside, CA 92521 USA

[2] ARS, USDA, US Salin Lab, Riverside, CA 92507 USA

[3] US EPA, Off Res & Dev, San Francisco, CA 94105 USA

关键词: Managed aquifer recharge (MAR);    Drywell;    Infiltration Basin, Infiltration;    Recharge;    HYDRUS (2D/3D);   

DOI  :  10.1016/j.jhydrol.2020.125720

来源: Elsevier

【 摘 要 】

Drywells (DWs) and infiltration basins (IBs) are widely used as managed aquifer recharge (MAR) devices to capture stormwater runoff and recharge groundwater. However, no published research has compared the performance of these two engineered systems under shared conditions. Numerical experiments were conducted on an idealized 2D-axisymmetric domain using the HYDRUS (2D/3D) software to systematically study the performance of a circular IB design (diameter and area) and partially penetrating DW (38 m length with water table > 60 m). The effects of subsurface heterogeneity on infiltration, recharge, and storage from the DW and IB under constant head conditions were investigated. The mean cumulative infiltration (mu I) and recharge (mu R) volumes increased, and the arrival time of recharge decreased with the IB area. Values of mu I were higher for a 70 m diameter IB than an DW, whereas the value of mu R was higher for a DW after 1-year of a constant head simulation under selected subsurface heterogeneity conditions. A comparison between mean mu I, mu R, and mean vadose zone storage (mu S) values for all DW and IB stochastic simulations (70 for each MAR scenario) under steady-state conditions demonstrated that five DWs can replace a 70 m diameter IB to achieve significantly higher infiltration and recharge over 20 years of operation. Additional numerical experiments were conducted to study the influence of a shallow clay layer by considering an IB, DW, and a DW integrated into an IB. The presence of such a low permeable layer delayed groundwater recharge from an IB. In contrast, a DW can penetrate tight clay layers and release water below them and facilitate rapid infiltration and recharge. The potential benefits of a DW compared to an IB include a smaller footprint, the potential for pre-treatments to remove contaminants, less evaporation, less mobilization of in-situ contaminants, and potentially lower maintenance costs. Besides, this study demonstrates that combining both IB and DW helps to get the best out of both MAR techniques.

【 授权许可】

Free