{"id":92137,"date":"2026-04-21T18:00:16","date_gmt":"2026-04-21T18:00:16","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/gaeatech.com\/knowledge-center\/?p=92137"},"modified":"2026-04-13T23:38:26","modified_gmt":"2026-04-13T23:38:26","slug":"pollutev10-example-1-modeling-a-u-s-rcra-subtitle-d-landfill","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/gaeatech.com\/knowledge-center\/pollutev10-example-1-modeling-a-u-s-rcra-subtitle-d-landfill\/","title":{"rendered":"POLLUTEv10 Example 1: Modeling a U.S. RCRA Subtitle D Landfill"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

This example is a classic scenario used to simulate contaminant transport from a U.S. RCRA Subtitle D landfill<\/strong> with a composite liner system. We\u2019ll break down the setup, key assumptions, model inputs, and interpret the results using graphs and downloadable PDF-style output<\/strong> suitable for reporting.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

Overview of the Scenario<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The example models a landfill with:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \n
  • A composite liner system<\/strong>:\n
      \n
    • 60 mil (1.5 mm) geomembrane<\/li>\n\n\n\n
    • 0.9 m compacted clay liner<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n
    • A primary leachate collection system<\/strong><\/li>\n\n\n\n
    • Defects in the geomembrane:\n
        \n
      • Hole area: 0.1 cm\u00b2<\/li>\n\n\n\n
      • Frequency: 1 per acre<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n
      • Constant leachate head: 0.3 m<\/li>\n\n\n\n
      • Constant contaminant source: 1500 \u03bcg\/L (VOC)<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n

        Leakage is computed internally using the Giroud method<\/strong>, while contaminant transport follows analytical solutions developed by R. Kerry Rowe<\/strong> and colleagues.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        \n\n\n\n

        Key Input Parameters<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
        Property<\/th>Symbol<\/th>Value<\/th>Units<\/th><\/tr><\/thead>
        Source Concentration<\/td>c\u2080<\/td>1500<\/td>\u03bcg\/L<\/td><\/tr>
        Landfill Length<\/td>L<\/td>200<\/td>m<\/td><\/tr>
        Leachate Head<\/td>–<\/td>0.3<\/td>m<\/td><\/tr>
        Clay Thickness<\/td>Hs<\/td>0.9<\/td>m<\/td><\/tr>
        Clay Diffusion<\/td>D<\/td>0.02<\/td>m\u00b2\/a<\/td><\/tr>
        Geomembrane Diffusion<\/td>–<\/td>3.0\u00d710\u207b\u2075<\/td>m\u00b2\/a<\/td><\/tr>
        Distribution Coefficient<\/td>Kd<\/td>0.5<\/td>mL\/g<\/td><\/tr>
        Soil Porosity<\/td>n<\/td>0.35<\/td>–<\/td><\/tr>
        Dry Density<\/td>–<\/td>1.9<\/td>g\/cm\u00b3<\/td><\/tr>
        Aquifer Thickness<\/td>h<\/td>3<\/td>m<\/td><\/tr>
        Aquifer Porosity<\/td>nb<\/td>0.3<\/td>–<\/td><\/tr>
        Base Velocity<\/td>vb<\/td>10<\/td>m\/a<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n
        \n\n\n\n

        Conceptual Model<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

        The model simulates:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

          \n
        1. Leakage through liner defects<\/strong><\/li>\n\n\n\n
        2. Diffusion + sorption in clay liner<\/strong><\/li>\n\n\n\n
        3. Transport into aquifer<\/strong><\/li>\n\n\n\n
        4. Down-gradient plume migration<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n
          \n\n\n\n

          Graphical Output: Depth vs Concentration for 3 Different Times<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
          \"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

          Interpretation<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
            \n
          • Highest concentration near landfill boundary<\/li>\n\n\n\n
          • Exponential decay with distance<\/li>\n\n\n\n
          • Controlled by:\n
              \n
            • Darcy velocity (vb)<\/li>\n\n\n\n
            • Dispersion (implicit in model)<\/li>\n\n\n\n
            • Sorption<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n
              \n\n\n\n
              \n\n\n\n

              PDF Report<\/h2>\n\n\n