Informacja

Drogi użytkowniku, aplikacja do prawidłowego działania wymaga obsługi JavaScript. Proszę włącz obsługę JavaScript w Twojej przeglądarce.

Wyszukujesz frazę "groundwater source protection zone" wg kryterium: Temat


Wyświetlanie 1-2 z 2
Tytuł:
Delineation of wellhead protection area based on the analytical elements method (AEM) – a case study with comparative research
Autorzy:
Nikiel, Maciej
Zdechlik, Robert
Powiązania:
https://bibliotekanauki.pl/articles/2172913.pdf
Data publikacji:
2022
Wydawca:
Akademia Górniczo-Hutnicza im. Stanisława Staszica w Krakowie. Wydawnictwo AGH
Tematy:
groundwater source protection zone
WHPA – wellhead protection area
Olesno intake
groundwater modelling
CFR – calculated fixed radius
FDM – finite differences method
FEM – finite elements method
Opis:
The delineation of protection zones for groundwater intakes is a difficult task resulting from the significant variability of regional and local environmental conditions. Different methods are used, both simple (analytical or graphic), giving estimated results, and the most reliable, but also the most time-consuming ones, based on numerical groundwater flow models. An alternative method for the delineation of protection zones is the analytical elements method (AEM), which gives solutions like those obtained using FDM/FEM modelling methods with a relatively low degree of complexity. The estimated ranges of protection zones obtained with the use of four methods are presented for the selected test area (groundwater intake around Olesno). Results obtained with the use of the FDM model were taken as reference and CFR and SimpleWHPA were used as simplified methods. Comparative studies indicate that the results obtained by the CFR method differ significantly from the results of other methods, and their reliability is low. The results of the SimpleWHPA method are satisfactory, given the relative simplicity of the method. On the other hand, the results obtained with the AEM are close to the results obtained with the FDM treated as a reference. Considering that AEM is less time-consuming than FDM (which requires the most effort for proper model preparation), the use of AEM in the practice of protection zone delineation seems to be an interesting alternative.
Źródło:
Geology, Geophysics and Environment; 2022, 48, 4; 335--352
2299-8004
2353-0790
Pojawia się w:
Geology, Geophysics and Environment
Dostawca treści:
Biblioteka Nauki
Artykuł
Tytuł:
Wyznaczanie terenu ochrony pośredniej ujęcia wód podziemnych : porównanie wyników uzyskanych metodami analitycznymi z modelowaniem numerycznym
Delineation of wellhead protection area :comparative study of results obtained by analytical methods and numerical modeling
Autorzy:
Duda, R.
Winid, B.
Zdechlik, R.
Powiązania:
https://bibliotekanauki.pl/articles/2075378.pdf
Data publikacji:
2015
Wydawca:
Państwowy Instytut Geologiczny – Państwowy Instytut Badawczy
Tematy:
ochrona wód podziemnych
obszar ochronny
WHP
strefa ochrony źródeł
metody analityczne
model numeryczny
czas przemieszczenia
groundwater protection
wellhead protection area
WHPA
source protection zone
analytical methods
numerical model
time-of-travel
Opis:
In case of groundwater intakes with a low well discharge, localized in simple hydrogeological conditions, the wellhead protection area (WHPA) can be delineated by one of available analytical methods. The differences between the WHPA ranges delineated by analytical methods, give rise to the question which method would be optimal to be used to handle simple hydrogeological conditions. Analytical methods considered in the study include the Wyssling method, the Krijgsman and Lobo-Ferreira (K&L-F) method, and the Analytical Element Method (AEM). WHPA delineated using analytical methods are compared with data obtained from hydrogeological numerical model, which becomes the reference method. The study was performed for two single wells, and a simplified case was considered too, whereby two wells were represented by an equivalent one. The criterion used in the assessment is the distance upstream from the well to the zone boundary (Lu ), for various time-of-travel to the intake (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25 years), and the shape and lateral extent of the WHPA. Discrepancies between the analytical methods vary depending on the time-of-travel, reaching 11% at most. Discrepancies between the analytical methods and numerical modelling results for single wells vary depending on the time-of-travel and the employed analytical approach, reaching 25% at most. For time-of-travel longer than 5 years, the maximal distances Lu calculated by the analytical methods are found to be smaller than those obtained by the reference method. The study indicate that results obtained by compared analytical methods are rather similar each other, but not similar to numerical modelling data. For scenario with the equivalent well there is major discrepancy between the reference values and analytical data.
Źródło:
Przegląd Geologiczny; 2015, 63, 10/1; 694--699
0033-2151
Pojawia się w:
Przegląd Geologiczny
Dostawca treści:
Biblioteka Nauki
Artykuł
    Wyświetlanie 1-2 z 2

    Ta witryna wykorzystuje pliki cookies do przechowywania informacji na Twoim komputerze. Pliki cookies stosujemy w celu świadczenia usług na najwyższym poziomie, w tym w sposób dostosowany do indywidualnych potrzeb. Korzystanie z witryny bez zmiany ustawień dotyczących cookies oznacza, że będą one zamieszczane w Twoim komputerze. W każdym momencie możesz dokonać zmiany ustawień dotyczących cookies