Model comparison of flow through a municipal solid waste incinerator ash landfill

C. A. Johnson, Marcel Schaap, K. C. Abbaspour

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

25 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The drainage discharge of a municipal solid waste incinerator (MSWI) bottom ash landfill was simulated using various modelling approaches. Two functional models including a neural networks approach and a hydrological linear storage model, and two mechanistic models requiring physical/hydrodynamic properties of the waste material, HYDRUS5 and MACRO (Version 4.0) were used. The models were calibrated using an 8-month data set from 1996 and validated on a 3-month data set from winter 1994/1995. The data sets comprised hourly values of rainfall, evaporation (estimated from the Penman-Monteith relationship), drainage discharge and electrical conductivity. Predicted and measured discharges were compared. The discharge predicted by the functional models more exactly followed the discharge patterns of the measured data but, particularly the linear storage model, could not cope with the non-linearity of the system that was caused by seasonal changes in water content of the MSWI bottom ash. The fit of the neural networks model to the data improved with increasing prior information but was less smooth than the measured data. The mechanistic model that included preferential discharge, MACRO, better modelled the discharge characteristics when inversely applied, indicating that preferential flow does occur in this system. However, even the inverse application of HYDRUS5 could not describe the system discharge as well as the linear storage model. All model approaches would have benefited from a more exact knowledge of initial water content.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)55-72
Number of pages18
JournalJournal of Hydrology
Volume243
Issue number1-2
DOIs
StatePublished - Mar 1 2001
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

municipal solid waste
landfills
landfill
ash
mechanistic models
bottom ash
neural networks
drainage
water content
waste incinerator
comparison
incinerators
preferential flow
hydrodynamics
electrical conductivity
evaporation
nonlinearity
rain
winter
rainfall

Keywords

  • Discharge
  • Drainage
  • Hydrology
  • Landfill
  • Leachate
  • Model
  • Neural network
  • Preferential flow

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Soil Science
  • Earth-Surface Processes

Cite this

Model comparison of flow through a municipal solid waste incinerator ash landfill. / Johnson, C. A.; Schaap, Marcel; Abbaspour, K. C.

In: Journal of Hydrology, Vol. 243, No. 1-2, 01.03.2001, p. 55-72.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Johnson, C. A. ; Schaap, Marcel ; Abbaspour, K. C. / Model comparison of flow through a municipal solid waste incinerator ash landfill. In: Journal of Hydrology. 2001 ; Vol. 243, No. 1-2. pp. 55-72.
@article{c3e01320287c460780e94bff50d49f62,
title = "Model comparison of flow through a municipal solid waste incinerator ash landfill",
abstract = "The drainage discharge of a municipal solid waste incinerator (MSWI) bottom ash landfill was simulated using various modelling approaches. Two functional models including a neural networks approach and a hydrological linear storage model, and two mechanistic models requiring physical/hydrodynamic properties of the waste material, HYDRUS5 and MACRO (Version 4.0) were used. The models were calibrated using an 8-month data set from 1996 and validated on a 3-month data set from winter 1994/1995. The data sets comprised hourly values of rainfall, evaporation (estimated from the Penman-Monteith relationship), drainage discharge and electrical conductivity. Predicted and measured discharges were compared. The discharge predicted by the functional models more exactly followed the discharge patterns of the measured data but, particularly the linear storage model, could not cope with the non-linearity of the system that was caused by seasonal changes in water content of the MSWI bottom ash. The fit of the neural networks model to the data improved with increasing prior information but was less smooth than the measured data. The mechanistic model that included preferential discharge, MACRO, better modelled the discharge characteristics when inversely applied, indicating that preferential flow does occur in this system. However, even the inverse application of HYDRUS5 could not describe the system discharge as well as the linear storage model. All model approaches would have benefited from a more exact knowledge of initial water content.",
keywords = "Discharge, Drainage, Hydrology, Landfill, Leachate, Model, Neural network, Preferential flow",
author = "Johnson, {C. A.} and Marcel Schaap and Abbaspour, {K. C.}",
year = "2001",
month = "3",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/S0022-1694(00)00404-2",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "243",
pages = "55--72",
journal = "Journal of Hydrology",
issn = "0022-1694",
publisher = "Elsevier",
number = "1-2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Model comparison of flow through a municipal solid waste incinerator ash landfill

AU - Johnson, C. A.

AU - Schaap, Marcel

AU - Abbaspour, K. C.

PY - 2001/3/1

Y1 - 2001/3/1

N2 - The drainage discharge of a municipal solid waste incinerator (MSWI) bottom ash landfill was simulated using various modelling approaches. Two functional models including a neural networks approach and a hydrological linear storage model, and two mechanistic models requiring physical/hydrodynamic properties of the waste material, HYDRUS5 and MACRO (Version 4.0) were used. The models were calibrated using an 8-month data set from 1996 and validated on a 3-month data set from winter 1994/1995. The data sets comprised hourly values of rainfall, evaporation (estimated from the Penman-Monteith relationship), drainage discharge and electrical conductivity. Predicted and measured discharges were compared. The discharge predicted by the functional models more exactly followed the discharge patterns of the measured data but, particularly the linear storage model, could not cope with the non-linearity of the system that was caused by seasonal changes in water content of the MSWI bottom ash. The fit of the neural networks model to the data improved with increasing prior information but was less smooth than the measured data. The mechanistic model that included preferential discharge, MACRO, better modelled the discharge characteristics when inversely applied, indicating that preferential flow does occur in this system. However, even the inverse application of HYDRUS5 could not describe the system discharge as well as the linear storage model. All model approaches would have benefited from a more exact knowledge of initial water content.

AB - The drainage discharge of a municipal solid waste incinerator (MSWI) bottom ash landfill was simulated using various modelling approaches. Two functional models including a neural networks approach and a hydrological linear storage model, and two mechanistic models requiring physical/hydrodynamic properties of the waste material, HYDRUS5 and MACRO (Version 4.0) were used. The models were calibrated using an 8-month data set from 1996 and validated on a 3-month data set from winter 1994/1995. The data sets comprised hourly values of rainfall, evaporation (estimated from the Penman-Monteith relationship), drainage discharge and electrical conductivity. Predicted and measured discharges were compared. The discharge predicted by the functional models more exactly followed the discharge patterns of the measured data but, particularly the linear storage model, could not cope with the non-linearity of the system that was caused by seasonal changes in water content of the MSWI bottom ash. The fit of the neural networks model to the data improved with increasing prior information but was less smooth than the measured data. The mechanistic model that included preferential discharge, MACRO, better modelled the discharge characteristics when inversely applied, indicating that preferential flow does occur in this system. However, even the inverse application of HYDRUS5 could not describe the system discharge as well as the linear storage model. All model approaches would have benefited from a more exact knowledge of initial water content.

KW - Discharge

KW - Drainage

KW - Hydrology

KW - Landfill

KW - Leachate

KW - Model

KW - Neural network

KW - Preferential flow

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0035282699&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0035282699&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/S0022-1694(00)00404-2

DO - 10.1016/S0022-1694(00)00404-2

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:0035282699

VL - 243

SP - 55

EP - 72

JO - Journal of Hydrology

JF - Journal of Hydrology

SN - 0022-1694

IS - 1-2

ER -