1887
Volume 73, Issue 4
  • E-ISSN: 1365-2478

Abstract

Abstract

Electrical resistivity tomography is a suitable technique for non‐invasive monitoring of municipal solid waste landfills, but accurate sensitivity analysis is necessary to evaluate the effectiveness and reliability of geoelectrical investigations and to properly design data acquisition. Typically, a thin high‐resistivity membrane is placed underneath the waste to prevent leakage of leachate. In the construction of a numerical framework for sensitivity computation, taking into account the actual dimensions of the electrodes and, in particular, of the membrane, can lead to extremely high computational costs. In this work, we present a novel approach for numerically computing sensitivity effectively by adopting a mixed‐dimensional framework, where the membrane is approximated as a two‐dimensional object and the electrodes as one‐dimensional objects. The code is first validated against analytical expressions for simple four‐electrode arrays and a homogeneous medium. Then it is tested in simplified landfill models, where a two‐dimensional box‐shaped liner separates the landfill body from the surrounding media, and 48 electrodes are used. The results show that electrodes arranged linearly along both sides of the perimeter edges of the box‐shaped liner are promising for detecting liner damage, with sensitivity increasing by 2 to 3 orders of magnitude, even for damage as small as one‐sixth of the electrode spacing in diameter. Good results are also obtained when simulating an electrical connection between the landfill and the surrounding media that is not due to liner damage. The configurations with the highest sensitivity directly beneath the liner are quadrupoles in which both the current and voltage dipoles have one electrode inside the liner and one electrode outside, and a two‐dimensional arrangement of the electrodes. The modelled sensitivity values beneath the liner are close to a minimum sensitivity threshold derived from arbitrary and simplified assumptions. We believe that direct current surveys have the potential to detect liner damage using electrode spreads positioned along the liner perimeter, both inside and outside the landfill. However, down‐scaled laboratory tests will be necessary to validate the modelling results and confirm whether the computed sensitivity values are sufficiently high to reliably detect liner damage.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.70006
2025-04-17
2026-02-08
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/gpr/73/4/gpr70006.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.70006&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Aavatsmark, I. (2002) An introduction to multipoint flux approximations for quadrilateral grids. Computational Geosciences, 6, 405–432.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Aavatsmark, I. (2007) Multipoint flux approximation methods for quadrilateral grids. In The 9th International Forum on Reservoir Simulation, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates.
  3. Aguzzoli, A., Hojat, A., Zanzi, L. & Arosio, D. (2020) Two dimensional ERT simulations to check the integrity of geomembranes at the base of landfillbodies. In NSG2020 26th European Meeting of Environmental and Engineering Geophysics, volume 2020. Houten, the Netherlands: European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers, 1‐5.
  4. Aldridge, D. & Oldenburg, D. (1989) Direct current electric potential field associated with two spherical conductors in a whole‐space 1. Geophysical Prospecting, 37(3), 311–330.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Bernstone, C., Dahlin, T., Ohlsson, T. & Hogland, H. (2000) Dc‐resistivity mapping of internal landfill structures: two pre‐excavation surveys. Environmental Geology, 39, 360–371.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Binley, A. & Daily, W. (2003) The performance of electrical methods for assessing the integrity of geomembrane liners in landfill caps and waste storage ponds. Journal of Environmental and Engineering Geophysics, 8(4), 227–237.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Binley, A. & Kemna, A. (2005) DC resistivity and induced polarization methods. In: Rubin, Y., Hubbard, S.S. (eds) Hydrogeophysics. Water Science and Technology Library, vol 50, 129‐156. Springer, Dordrecht.
  8. Dahlin, T., Rosqvist, H. & Leroux, V. (2010) Resistivity‐IP mapping for landfill applications. First Break, 28(8), 101–105.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Day‐Lewis, F.D., Singha, K. & Binley, A.M. (2005) Applying petrophysical models to radar travel time and electricalresistivity tomograms: resolution‐dependent limitations. Journal of Geophysical Research, 110, B08206.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. De Carlo, L., Perri, M.T., Caputo, M.C., Deiana, R., Vurro, M. & Cassiani, G. (2013) Characterization of a dismissed landfill via electrical resistivity tomography and mise‐á‐la‐masse method. Journal of Applied Geophysics, 98, 1–10.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. De Donno, G. & Cardarelli, E. (2017) Tomographic inversion of time‐domain resistivity and chargeability data for the investigation of landfills using a priori information. Waste Management, 59, 302–315.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Edwards, L.S. (1977) A modified pseudosection for resistivity and induced‐polarization. Geophysics, 42(5), 939–1087.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. European Commission (2015) Closing the loop‐an EU action plan for the circular economy. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. Technical report, Brussels: European Commission.
  14. Frangos, W. (1997) Electrical detection of leaks in lined waste disposal ponds. Geophysics, 62(6), 1737–1744.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Fumagalli, A., Panzeri, L., Formaggia, L., Scotti, A. & Arosio, D. (2024) A mixed‐dimensional model for direct current simulations in the presence of a thin high‐resistivity liner. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 125(6), e7407.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Geuzaine, C. & Remacle, J.‐F. (2009) Gmsh: A 3‐D finite element mesh generator with built‐in pre‐ and post‐processing facilities. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 79(11), 1309–1331.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Giroux, L. (2014) State of waste management in Canada. Giroux Environmental Consulting. Technical report, Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, Kanata, Ontario, Canada.
  18. Jones, P. T., et al,. (2013) Enhanced landfill mining in view of multiple resource recovery: a critical review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 55, 45–55.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Li, X.S. (2005) An overview of SuperLU: Algorithms, implementation, and user interface. Transactions on Mathematical Software, 31(3), 302–325.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Ling, C., Revil, A., Qi, Y., Abdulsamad, F., Shi, P., Nicaise, S. & Peyras, L. (2019) Application of the mise‐à‐la‐masse method to detect the bottom leakage of water reservoirs. Engineering Geology, 261, 105272.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Loke, M. & Barker, R. (1995) Least‐squares deconvolution of apparent resistivity pseudosections. Geophysics, 60(6), 1682–1690.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Loke, M.H. (2022) Tutorial: 2‐D and 3‐D electrical imaging surveys. Course notes. Accessible at https://www.geotomosoft.com/
  23. Mcgillivray, P.R. & Oldenburg, D. (1990) Methods for calculating Fréchet derivatives and sensitivities for the non‐linear inverse problem: a comparative study. Geophysical Prospecting, 38(5), 499–524.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Nanda, S. & Berruti, F. (2021) Municipal solid waste management and landfilling technologies: a review. Environmental Chemistry Letters, 19, 1433–1456.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Panzeri, L., Fumagalli, A., Aguzzoli, A., Zanzi, L., Longoni, L., Papini, M., & Arosio, D. (2023) Lab and modelling DC resistivity tests to analyse the response of a high resistivity liner. In 5th Asia Pacific Meeting on Near Surface Geoscience & Engineering, volume 2023. Houten, the Netherlands: European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers, pp. 1–5.
  26. Panzeri, L., Fumagalli, A., Zanzi, L., Longoni, L., Papini, M. & Arosio, D. (2023) Validation of a mixed‐dimensional code for the analysis of highly resistive liners in landfills. In NSG2023 29th European Meeting of Environmental and Engineering Geophysics, volume 2023. Houten, the Netherlands: European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers, pp. 1–5.
  27. Park, S.K. & Van, G.P. (1991) Inversion of pole‐pole data for 3‐D resistivity structure beneath arrays of electrodes. Geophysics, 56(7), 951–960.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Peters, A. (2016) These maps show how many landfills there are in the U.S. (accessed 20 July 2024). Accessible at https://www.fastcompany.com/3062853/these‐maps‐show‐how‐much‐of‐the‐us‐is‐covered‐in‐landfills
  29. Raviart, P.‐A. & Thomas, J.‐M. (1977) A mixed finite element method for second order elliptic problems. Lecture Notes in Mathematics, 606, 292–315.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Rücker, C., Günther, T. & Wagner, F.M. (2017) pygimli: an open‐source library for modelling and inversion in geophysics. Computers & Geosciences, 109, 106–123.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Salsa, S. (2016) Partial differential equations in action. From modelling to theory, volume 99 of La Matematica per il 3+2. Cham: Springer International Publishing.
  32. Sheriff, R.E., Telford, W.M. & Geldart, L.P. (1990) Applied geophysics (2nd ed.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Tsourlos, P., Vargemezis, G., Fikos, I. & Tsokas, G. (2014) DC geoelectrical methods applied to landfill investigation: case studies from Greece. First Break, 32(8), 81–89.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Wagner, T.P. & Raymond, T. (2015) Landfill mining: case study of a successful metals recovery project. Waste Management, 45, 448–457.
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.70006
Loading
/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.70006
Loading

Data & Media loading...

Most Cited This Month Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error