Shurniak Robert Edward 2003 Sec PDF

Predictive Modeling of Moisture Movement
within Soil Cover Systems for

Saline/Sodic Overburden Piles
A Thesis Submitted to the College of Graduate Studies and Research in Partial

Fulfillment of the Degree of Master of Science in the Department of Civil
Engineering, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Canada
By
Robert Edward Shurniak
© Copyright Robert Edward Shurniak, January 2003. All rights reserved.

PERMISSION TO USE
In presenting this thesis in partial fulfillment of the requirements for a Postgraduate
degree from the University of Saskatchewan, I agree that the Libraries of this University
may make it freely available for inspection. I further agree that the permission for
copying of this thesis in any manner, in whole or in part, for scholarly purposes may be
granted by the professor or professors who supervised my thesis work or, in their
absence, by the Head of the Department or the Dean of the College in which my thesis
work was done. It is understood that any copying or publication or use of this thesis or
parts thereof for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. It is
also understood that due recognition shall be given to me and the University of
Saskatchewan in any scholarly use which may be made of any material in my thesis.
Requests for permission to copy or to make other use of material in this thesis in whole
or part should be addressed to:
Head of the Department of Civil Engineering,

University of Saskatchewan,
Saskatoon, Saskatchewan,
Canada, S7N OWO
1
ABSTRACT
The research presented in this thesis describes the application of the computer modeling
program Soil Cover 2000 as a tool for predicting the soil-atmosphere fluxes and
associated moisture movement in a variety of soil cover systems. The four systerns
examined for this thesis are used to reclaim a saline-sodic shale overburden deposit
located at the Syncrude Canada Limited mine site, 40 km North of Fort McMurray,
Alberta, Canada. The research represents the second phase of a cover instrumentation
and modeling research program.
Characterization of the soil cover materials and field responses was carried out during
phase one research conducted by Boese (2003) and Meiers (2002). The models \vere
made to simulate field conditions by using multi-modal soil-water characteristic curves
and hydraulic conductivity functions, and by estimating the growth of the plant species
found on the covers. Computed and measured field response patterns for the four cover
systems matched reasonably well for a five month period from May 19 to October 22,
2000. The models were then applied ~o predict the field measurements for the same
period during 2001. Only two adjustments needed to be made to the model pararneters
in order to simulate the 2001 data; namely changing the dominant vegetation (and
related growth parameters) and; adjusting the saturated hydraulic conductivity to 1:natch
Meiers (2002) field measurements.
The calibrated model inputs were used to simulate five cover designs to test their
performance during extreme climate conditions. The main objective was to ascertain
whether a thinner cover system than the currently recommended cover thickness of 1 m
could be effective at the mine. The results indicate that the peat layer is required to
minimize the amount of runoff and to decrease the potential for saturated conditions·
forming at the base of the cover. For a peat-over-till cover system to work effectively,
the peat layer needs to be thicker than 30 em to further reduce the potential for saturated
conditions forming at the base. However, thinning the till layer is acceptable sinc:e the
results show that a thinner till layer has little impact on the performance of the cover.
The overall cover thickness needs to be greater than 60 em to improve plant survival.
11
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Financial support for the research of this thesis was provided by Syncrude Canada
Limited and theN ational Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
(NSERC).
I owe a special debt of gratitude to my supervisors Dr. Lee Barbour and the late I)r. Bill
Stolte, and my industrial supervisor Ms. Clara Qualizza. Their support and enthusiasm
for the work was a constant motivation. They were always willing to take time out of
their schedules to address problems, discuss solutions, and offer any assistance I
required. Most importantly, they taught me to appreciate the process of research and
learning more than the reward of its completion.
I would like to thank Calvin Boese, Greg Meiers, and Denise Meier for their help and
friendship. I relied on them to supply me with the field measurements required for my
modeling, and they never let me down. They promptly shared new findings and
research with me and always offered assistance when I needed it. I enjoyed all th1~ time
I spent with them and hope to continue our friendships in the future.
I am greatly indebted to Greg and Lori Newman for the time they spent answering
questions I had about the Soil Cover model and for making all the model changes I
requested. Without their help I would not have been able to complete this thesis.
Finally, I would like to thank all of my family and friends. In particular, I would like to
thank my parents, Janet and the late Edward Shurniak, and my uncle, Dr. Bill ShUllniak,
for their financial and moral support, and my wife, N atasha, for providing
encouragement and tolerating my thesis work for the past three years.
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PERMISSION TO USE 1
ABSTRACT 11
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 111
TABLE OF CONTENTS 1V
LIST OF TABLES V111
LIST OF FIGURES 1X.
Chapter One: INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Description of the Problem 2

1.2 Description of the Study Area and Research 3
1.3 Study Objectives 6
1.4 Methodology for this Thesis 7
1.5 Overview of Chapters 9
Chapter Two: SITE BACKGROUND 10
2.1 Cover Details 10

2.2 Climate 13
2.3 Instrumentation 16
Chapter Three: THEORETICAL BACKGROUND 20
3.1 Heat and Mass Transfer Equations 21

3.2 Atmospheric Boundary Layer Coupling 24
3.3 Vegetation Effects 25
3.4 Finite Element Formulation 29
3.5 Calculation of Runoff 30
3.6 Soil Properties 31
3.6.1 Soil-Water Characteristic Curve 31
1V
3.6.2 Hydraulic Conductivity Function 33
Chapter Four: KEY PARAMETERS 34
4.1 Soil-Water Characteristic Curve 34

4.2 Hydraulic Conductivity Function 38
4.3 Vegetation 39
Chapter Five: FIELD RESPONSE MODELING 43
5.1 Model Details 43

5.1.1 Simulation Period and Initial Conditions 44
5.1.2 Cover Stratigraphy 44
5.1.3 Boundary Conditions 46
5.1.3.1 Surface Boundary Conditions 46

5.1.3.2 Lower Boundary Conditions 46
5.1.4 Vegetation 47
5.1.5 Soil Properties 48
5.1.5.1 Soil-Water Characteristic Curve 48
5.1.5.2 Hydraulic Conductivity Function 50
5.1.5.3 Thermal Properties 51

5.2 Model Results 52
5.2.1 Water Balance Components 52

5.2.2 Matric Suction Responses 54
5.2.3 Soil Temperature Responses 55
5.2.4 Volumetric Water Content and Storage Responses 58
5.2.4.1 D 1 Cover System 58
5.2.4.2 D2 Cover System 61
5.2.4.4 BL Cover System 68
5.3 Summary and Evaluation of Field Response Modeling 71
v
5.4 Sensitivity Analysis 73
5.5 Summary and Evaluation of Sensitivity Analysis 77
Chapter Six: PREDICTIVE MODELING 78
6.1 Application of Models to 2001 Data 78

6.1.1 Details of 2001 Models 78
6.1.1.1 Simulation Period and Initial Conditions 79
6.1.1.2 Vegetation 79
6 .1.1.3 Soil Properties 82
6.1.2 Model Results 85
6.1.2.4 BL Cover System 91
6.2 Summary and Evaluation of 2001 Model Results 94
6.3 Predictive Modeling 95

6.3 .1 Predictive Modeling Scenarios 95
6.3.1.1 Cover Designs 95
6.3.1.2 Vegetation 96
6.3 .1.3 Extreme and Mean Climate Conditions 97
6.3.2 Predictive Modeling Results 98
6.3 .2.1 Saturation Responses 99
6.3 .2.2 Matric Suction Responses 102
6.3 .2.3 Runoff 105
6.4 Summary and Evaluation of the Results 106
Chapter Seven: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 107
7.1 Evaluation of Predictive Capabilities 107

7.2 Preliminary Recommendation for a Cover Design 109
Vl
7.3 Future Research 109
7.3 .1 Research to Improve Model Calibration 109
7.3 .2 Model Improvements 110
7.4 Concluding Remarks 110
References: 112
Appendix A: SWCC and HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY FUNCTIONS 120

Appendix B: CALIBRATED MODEL RESULTS 129
Vll
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1 Summary of field instrumentation at the South Hills research area 17
Table 5.1 Summary of soil properties used for the soil cover systems 48
Table 5.2 Sensitivity analysis results for the D1 cover system 74
Vlll
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1 a) Location of the Syncrude Canada Limited mine site b) Site Map 4
Figure 1.2 Cross-section of field instrumentation (after Boese, 2003) 5
Figure 1.3 Flowchart of the modeling methodology 8
Figure 2.1 View of the prototype cover site as looking northeast 11
Figure 2.2 Three-dimensional contour map of the prototype cover site 12
Figure 2.3 View of the Bill's Lake study site as looking southwest 12
Figure 2.4 Three-dimensional contour map of the Bill's Lake study site 13
Figure 2.5 Climate for the South Hills research area and surrounding locations 14
Figure 2.6 Site plan of the South Hills showing the locations of the field
instrumentation 18
Figure 2.7 Layout of a soil station (after Boese, 2003) 19
Figure 3.1 Example of the three leaf area index functions generated with
Soil Cover (Soil Cover, 2000) 27
Figure 3.2 Shape function used to calculate the potential root uptake
distribution through the active root zone (after Prasad, 1988) 27
Figure 3.3 Definition of the plant limiting factor from the nodal matric suction
(SoilCover, 2000) 28
Figure 3.4 Soil-water characteristic curve generated using the
SoilCover 2000 program 32
Figure 4.1 Deviations between soil-water characteristic data and fitted
unimodal soil-water characteristic curves (after Durner, 1994) 36
Figure 4.2 In situ water content versus suction data fitted by unimodal
equations for the soil-water characteristic curve 37
Figure 4.3 In situ water content versus suction data fitted by the
multi-Fredlund and Xing model 37
Figure 4.4 In situ unsaturated hydraulic conductivity versus suction data,
measured during the summer of 2000, fitted by a hydraulic
conductivity function estimated from the multi-Fredlund and Xing
soil-water characteristic curve 39
Figure 4.5 Green foxtail root biomass distribution within the prototype cover
systems (after van Rees and Jackson, 2002) 41
Figure 4.6 Picture of green foxtail on the prototype covers with an inset of a
picture of a single green foxtail plant (inset from Province of British
Columbia, 1998) 42
lX
Figure 4.7 Picture of smooth brome on the Bill's Lake cover system. The inset
is a picture of the head of a single smooth brome plant (inset from
Perry, 2001) 42
Figure 5.1 Design of the four soil cover systems used on the South Hills
research area 45
Figure 5.2 The actual dimensions of the soil cover systems and the locations
of the instruments placed within the covers 45
Figure 5.3 Soil-water characteristic curves for the a) peat and till b) peat/till
mix 49
Figure 5.4 Hydraulic conductivity functions for the a) peat and till b) peat/till
mix 50
Figure 5.5 Thermal conductivity versus gravimetric water content functions
for soils used to construct the cover systems 51
Figure 5.6 Specific heat versus gravimetric water content functions for soils
used to construct the cover systems 52
Figure 5.7 Calculated water balance components for the D 1 prototype cover 53
Figure 5.8 Comparison of cumulative potential evaporation calculated using
the D 1 cover model and measured from the prototype and Bill's
Lake evaporation pans 54
Figure 5.9 Comparison of the matric suction measured by Boese (2003) and
computed matric suction responses at three depths in the D 1 soil
cover 56
Figure 5.10 Comparison of soil temperature response measured by Boese (2003)
and computed soil temperature responses at three depths within the
D 1 cover system 57
Figure 5.11 Cumulative water volume per unit area in each of the D 1 cover
layers 59
Figure 5.12 Comparison of volumetric water content profiles measured by
Boese (2003) and computed volumetric water content profiles for
the D 1 cover system 60
Figure 5.13 Total cumulative change in storage per unit area for the D 1 cover 61
Figure 5.14 Cumulative water volume per unit area in each of the D2 cover
layers 62
the D2 cover system 63
Figure 5.16 Total cumulative change in storage per unit area for the D2 cover 64
X
layers 65
Figure 5.18 Total cumulative change in storage per unit area for the D3 cover 66
the D3 cover system 67
Figure 5.20 Cumulative water volume per unit area in each of the BL cover
layers 69
the BL cover system 70
Figure 5.22 Total cumulative change in storage per unit area for the BL cover 71
Figure 5.23 Tornado sensitivity plot for actual evaporation from the D1 cover 74
Figure 5.24 Tornado sensitivity plot for infiltration into the D1 cover 75
Figure 5.25 Effects of changes to the SWCC on the water storage within the D1
cover 76
Figure 5.26 The effect of vegetation on the water storage within the D 1 cover
system 77
Figure 6.1 Comparison of the 2000 and 2001 hydraulic conductivity functions
and field measurements for the shallow peat layers 83
Figure 6.2 2001 hydraulic conductivity functions for the a) peat and till
b) peat/till mix 84
Figure 6.3 Total cumulative change in storage per unit area for the D1 cover
during the 2001 model period 85
Figure 6.4 Cumulative water volume per unit area in each of the D 1 cover
layers during the 2001 model period 86
Figure 6.9 Total cumulative change in storage per unit area for the BL cover
Xl
Figure 6.10 Cumulative water volume per unit area in each of the BL cover
Figure 6.11 Five cover designs used for the predictive modeling scenarios 96
Figure 6.12 Cumulative potential evaporation and precipitation data, for the
months of May through October, collected at the Fort McMurray
Airport from 1959 until 1993 98
Figure 6.13 Changes in the saturation level ofthe 30-70 cover 99
Figure 6.14 Changes in the saturation level of the 15-70 cover 100
Figure 6.17 Changes in the saturation level ofthe 0-100 cover 101
Figure 6.18 Matric suction profiles within the 30-70 cover 102
Figure 6.22 Matric suction profiles within the 0-1 00 cover 104
Figure 6.23 Amount of runoff generated during the extreme wet, extreme dry
and average years for each of the design cover systems 106
xu
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
Soil cover systems are commonly constructed over tailings and waste rock as one
component of an overall decommissioning strategy (Newman et al., 1999). The
purposes of the soil covers are; to enable the sustainable growth of productive
vegetation; to control the deep percolation of groundwater; to control the diffusion of
gases; and to stabilize the reclaimed area. This thesis describes a study of the
effectiveness of various cover systems used to reclaim an overburden shale deposit at
the Syncrude Canada Limited mine site. These soil covers were comprised of varying
soil types and layering and were used primarily to promote sustainable vegetative
growth while minimizing upward salt movement from the overburden shale. To
interpret the effectiveness of each soil cover, the computer-modeling program
Soil Cover 2000 was used to simulate vertical moisture movement within the soil
covers. This thesis represents the first time a computer model has been applied to
simulate this terrain.
Moisture movement was chosen as the variable of study because of its central role in
defining the long-term sustainability of the cover in accordance with the Land
Capability Classification for Forest Ecosystems in the Oil Sands Region (Leskiw,
1998). McKenna (200 1) concluded, after a survey of 69 mine sites, that hydrology and
hydrologic modeling is the number one unknown in the design of mine reclamation.
This work attempts to provide at least some answers to this problem in relation to the
performance of soil <;overs on saline-sodic shale overburden.
Page 1
Chapter 1: Introduction Page 2
1.1 Description of the Problem
The Syncrude Canada Limited mine site, located 40 kilometers north of Fort
McMurray, Alberta (Figure l.la), uses open-pit mining to extract the Athabasca oil
sands. Post-glacial and glacial deposits as well as saline-sodic shale must be removed
in order to reach the oil sands. Excavation of the over-consolidated shale requires the
placement of large overburden piles at surface. These piles are recontoured and then
covered with reclamation soils. The objective is to return the disturbed land to a stable,
biologically self-sustaining state. To date, Syncrude has reclaimed over 2700 hectares
of land and planted over 1.8 million trees (Syncrude, 2000).
The presence of shale overburden beneath the soil cover systems poses a number of
potential reclamation problems. The problems stem from three factors: the dispersivity
of the clays when subject to freshwater infiltration; subsidence due to the method of
placement of the overburden piles; and salinization (Stolte et al., 2000).
The saline-sodic shale overburden is composed of potentially dispersive clay. When the
clay is exposed to fresh water it deflocculates and the clay particles are freely
transported by flowing water. In addition, when the shale is fully saturated it has a low
natural angle of repose of7°, or a slope of 12%. There is also a related problem with
subsidence with the shale overburden piles. The shale is placed during the winter when
the soil is frozen, in a loose, non-homogeneous state, with many large voids remaining
in the deposited material. This may cause the overburden to undergo subsidence and
compaction due to loading and wetting. Finally, the ingress of water into these large
surface deposits may lead to the development of saline groundwater discharge into
surface water bodies (Barbour et al., 2001). Therefore, the soil cover systems must
have the proper material properties and layering in order to minimize the infiltration of
moisture into the underlying shale, while providing sufficient moisture storage for
vegetation.
1.2 Description of the Study Area and Research
The focus of this study is a series of full-scale soil cover systems constructed on the
South Hills research area (Figure 1.1 b). Construction of three of the cover systems,
referred to collectively as the prototype covers, took place during 1999 on the South
Hills overburden piles. These covers were constructed with two soil layers of varying
thickness in accordance with the soil classification system developed by Leskiw et al.
(1999). The two soils were comprised of surface peat/mineral mix overlying
'secondary'; a term referring to glacial lacustrine or glacial till deposits. For the
remainder of this thesis, peat/mineral mix is referred to as peat. Each of the prototype
covers is approximately 1 hectare in size (200 m long and 50 m wide) and placed on a 5
to 1 slope. The fourth study site, referred to as Bill's Lake, was constructed during
1996 in a wetland adjacent to the three prototype covers. The Bill's Lake cover system
consists of 100 em of mixed peat/till secondary overlying the shale. These covers will
be described further in following chapters.
Instrumentation to monitor the hydrology and water balance of the three prototype
covers and the Bill's Lake site were installed during the summers of 1999 and 2000.
The instrumentation on each site monitors soil suction, water content, and temperature.
Neutron probe access tubes were installed at the top, middle and bottom of each cover
to monitor the effect of slope position on cover performance. Runoff from the
prototype covers can be measured at the base of each plot using v-notch weirs.
Interflow measurement systems were installed in June of 2000 within the prototype
covers. The interflow systems allow for the measurement of the amount of water
flowing down-slope along the soil cover/overburden interface. Each system is
composed of a geomembrane cutoff, located at the soil cover/overburden interface, a
weeping tile collection pipe and a barrel. A weather station, located at the middle of the
prototype covers, collects the necessary climate data (temperature, relative humidity,
wind-speed, and precipitation). A Bowen Ratio Energy Balance (BREB) apparatus was
used over the summer period to measure evapotranspiration from the study locations.
a}
Syncrude
Canada Limited
Mine Site
FIGURES NOT
TO SCALE
Figure 1.1. a) Location of Syncrude Canada Limited mine site b) Site map.
Figure 1.2 shows where the instruments were located on each of the study areas.
Chapter 2 contains further information on the site instrumentation and monitoring. A
detailed description of the cover monitoring and instrumentation system is provided by
Boese (2003).
Figure 1.2. Cross-section of field instrumentation (after Boese, 2003).
Boese (2003) was primarily responsible for the installation and monitoring of the
instrumentation on the South Hills research area. He performed the initial data analysis
and water balance calculations for the covers and was the first to note that soil-water
characteristic data could be generated using the measured in situ data (see Section 4.1
for details). Meiers (2003) used a Guelph permeameter to measure the saturated
hydraulic conductivity of the various soil types used on the research area. He also aided
with the installation and monitoring of the instrumentation.
As well as the moisture movement modeling, the author of this thesis helped install and
monitor the instrumentation, performed some of the data analysis, and conducted
research regarding soil-water characteristic curves, hydraulic conductivity functions,
and the vegetation found on the research area. The author used the measured in situ
soil-water characteristic data to develop soil-water characteristic curves for use in the
models. The author implemented the instantaneous profile method to ascertain the
shape of the hydraulic conductivity functions (see Section 4.2 for details).
1.3 Study Objectives
The South Hills research program consists of three different study activities:
1. Detailed field monitoring and characterization of the performance of the soil

covers.
2. Watershed monitoring and characterization.
3. Laboratory characterization of the effect of weathering on the hydraulic
performance of the saline-sodic overburden.
The objectives of the South Hills research program are to:
1. Evaluate the long-term performance and effectiveness of soil covers for

reclamation of saline-sodic overburden.
2. Develop a fully monitored watershed within the reclaimed overburden from which
the evolution of the hydrologic and hydrogeologic behavior of the reclaimed areas
and associated wetlands can be studied.
3. Develop and implement surface and groundwater models that can describe the
long-term behavior of the reclaimed saline-sodic overburden.
4. Characterize the rates of weathering within the overburden piles so that the long-
term physical stability and hydraulic behavior of the piles can be defined.
The scope of this thesis is the implementation of computer models to simulate moisture
movement within the soil covers. The objectives of this thesis are to:
1. Determine the soil properties of the cover systems by simulating the measured field
responses.
2. Provide a preliminary recommendation as to the most effective soil cover design for
saline-sodic overburden.
3. Indicate future research and model improvements that are necessary in order to
evaluate the long-term performance of the soil covers.
1.4 Methodology for this Thesis
Figure 1.3 shows a flowchart that summarizes the methodology followed in this thesis.
Each stage of the flowchart is explained below.
1. Site Familiarization: This stage involved visiting the study area, as well as
compiling and reviewing the existing data and reports regarding the study area.
2. Model Parameterization: The data set describing the soil and physical environment
was defined. This meant removing erroneous or questionable data from the field
measurements prior to their use in the models. Initial assumptions were made in
regards to the soil-water characteristic curves, hydraulic conductivity functions and
vegetation. The data and assumptions were inputted into the models to generate the
initial simulations.
3. Parameter Calibration: The results of the simulations were compared to the field
measurements. Changes were then made to the models by adapting the soil-water
characteristic curves, hydraulic conductivity functions and vegetation inputs.
These two steps were repeated until the models reasonably simulated the field
measurements.
4. Sensitivity Analysis: The main variables were analyzed to identify how much they
controlled the performance of the model.
5. Predictive Modeling: The performance of various soil cover systems was evaluated
under extreme climatic conditions.
Site Familiarization
Model Parameterization
Parameter Calibration
Sensitivity Analysis
Predictive Modeling
Analysis of Results
Recommendations
Figure 1.3. Flowchart of the modeling methodology.

6. Analysis ofResults: The modeled results were analyzed in order to make

preliminary recommendations in regards to how to construct the most effective soil
cover system to isolate the saline-sodic overburden.
1.5 Overview of Chapters
The following section provides an overview of each chapter of this thesis.
Chapter 2 gives a detailed description of the site background. Information on the

covers, climate and instrumentation at the site is supplied.
Chapter 3 contains the theoretical background for the Soil Cover model used in this
research.
Chapter 4 describes specific findings on the three key input parameters used in the
Soil Cover modeling program.
Chapter 5 contains a description of the field response modeling and sensitivity analysis.
Chapter 6 describes applying the field response models to the 2001 data, and using the
field response model inputs to develop a preliminary cover design for the Syncrude
mine site.
Chapter 7 gives the conclusions and recommendations developed from this research.
Chapter 2
SITE BACKGROUND
The Syncrude Canada Limited (SCL) mine site, located North of Fort McMurray,
Alberta, is the world's largest producer of light sweet crude oil from oil sand and the
largest single source of oil in Canada. At present, Syncrude produces approximately 13
percent of Canada's petroleum needs. By 2007, total production is expected to double,
reaching approximately 170 million barrels of light sweet crude oil annually. (Syncrude,
2000)
The peat, glacial lacustrine/till and saline-sodic shale overlying the oil sands are
removed first and are placed in separate piles at surface. The shale piles are re-
contoured to create a hummocky landscape that includes vegetated uplands and isolated
wetlands; in order to stimulate biological diversity. The contoured shale is then covered
with a specified thickness of glacial deposits and a thin layer of peat, as was done at the
prototype covers, or a peat/till mixture, as was done at Bill's Lake.
2.1 Cover Details
Figure 2.1 shows a picture of the Prototype Cover site. Each of the three prototype
covers is approximately 1 hectare in size (200 m long and 50 m wide) and is placed on a
5 to 1 slope. The three prototype covers were constructed side by side with the
following nominal cover thicknesses, starting with the most westerly cover:
Page 10
Chapter 2: Site Background Page 11
• D1- 20 em of peat overlying 30 em of till secondary covering the shale

• D2 - 15 em of peat overlying 20 em of till secondary covering the shale
• D3 - 20 em of peat overlying 80 em of till secondary covering the shale
Figure 2.2 illustrates the layout of the prototype covers. The D3 cover is the control
plot, with a cover thickness based on the current agreement with Alberta Environment
(Alberta Environment, 1995).
Figure 2.3 shows a picture of the Bill's Lake study site. This site includes a wetland
and its catchment. The Bill's Lake cover system consists of a nominal thickness of 100
em of mixed peat/glacial deposits overlying saline-sodic shale. Figure 2.4 illustrates the
layout of the Bill's Lake study site.
Figure 2.1. View of the prototype cover site as looking northeast.

D1 D2 D3
Figure 2.2. Three-dimensional contour map of the prototype cover site

(2m elevation contours).
Figure 2.3. View of the Bill' s Lake study site as looking southwest.
Figure 2.4. Three-dimensional contour map of the Bill's Lake study site
(2m elevation contours).
2.2 C:lUolate
Figure 2.5 presents climatic data for the South Hills research area and surrounding
locations. Climate data collected at the Fort McMurray Airport, Mildred Lake and the
South Hills are used to characterize the climate at the research area. The Fort
McMurray Airport weather station, located 50 kilometers south of the research area, has
been in operation for over 50 years. The weather station located at Mildred Lake, 5
kilometers north of the South Hills, has been in operation since 1994. The South Hills
weather station, located in the middle of the D2 prototype cover, has been in operation
since June of 1999. The five key climatic parameters used to create the SoilCover
models measured by these stations include; precipitation; temperature; short-wave
radiation; relative humidity; and wind-speed. Each of these parameters is discussed
further in the following paragraphs.
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
100 ~!~m!~! Fort McMurray (1953-1993)
c 80 c:::=:JMildred Lake (1994-1999)
0
:;:::: -----Wood Bison Hills (2000)
n:s- 60
:: E
.9- E 40
u-
~
ll. 20
0
30 ...-----,------.---..----.-----.,.--..----..-~ fillli! Fort McMurray (1953-1993)
c:::=:JMildred Lake (1994-1999)
20 -----Wood Bison Hills (2000)
~
-::::J
ctl
a..
Cl)
Q.-
0
0
10
0 ~~~=-~==~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Mm~
E
Cl)
-10
1-
-20
-30 ~--~--~--~--~--~--~--~--~--~--~--~~
c 25 .-------r--r----..----,-------,.--.,.----1 c:::=:JWood Bison Hills : Net (1999)

0
:0: l'll!'l'lliWood Bison Hills : Net (2000)
:5 -~
ctl
20 1 --11---+--i -----Mildred Lake: Incoming (1997-2000)
0:: "'C 15
CI)N
> E
3:ctl ..,
- 10
I :::!!:
t::- 5
0
.r::
rn
100
~
r- r- -Q"_...
_..... ...1"\_
-o- -->r-, ;:L-

,__ ,__ ..-- II-+ ~
r-
r--.1' ' ..-- r- 1-
~
I-
... ..... v v""
. ~~--
II"
It- i:: L L L... L- ~
.... t!:!1!.lll Fort McMurray (1953-1994)

c:::=:J Mildred Lake (1997-2000)
-a- Wood Bison Hills (2000 Maximum)
0 ·L-
-----Wood Bison Hills (2000 Minimum)
15 .---~--~--~--~--~--~--~--~----~--~--~~
"'C
Cl)
8.;? 10
fl) E
"'C.x:
c- 5
~ c:::=:J Mildred Lake (1997-2000)
-----Wood Bison Hills (2000)
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Figure 2.5. Climate for the South Hills research area and surrounding locations.
Just over 330 mm of precipitation fell on the South Hills research area in 2000. The top
graphic in Figure 2.5 shows how the precipitation was distributed over the year. This
amount of precipitation is less than the average measured at Fort McMurray from 1953
to 1993 (460 mm) and at Mildred Lake from 1994-1999 (392 mm).
The average monthly air temperatures for the South Hills (2000), Mildred Lake (1994-
1999), and Fort McMurray (1953-1993) are shown below the precipitation graphic in
Figure 2.5. As can be seen in the figure, the average monthly air temperatures
measured at the research area during 2000 are close to the long-term averages measured
at the other two locations.
Net short-wave radiation was measured at South Hills during the summers of 1999 and
2000. A radiometer attached to the Bowen Ratio Energy Balance (BREB) apparatus
was located at the middle of the D2 prototype cover from June to October of 1999. It
was placed there again from May to July of2000, and moved to Bill's Lake from
August until October, 2000. The average daily net short-wave radiation measured by
the radiometer is shown in Figure 2.5. This data is compared to the average daily
incoming short-wave radiation measured at Mildred Lake from 1997-2000. This
comparison shows that the net short-wave radiation is approximately half the amount of
incoming short-wave radiation.
Average monthly values of maximum and minimum relative humidity for the South
Hills (2000) are also shown in Figure 2.5. A maximum value of 94 %occurs in
September with a minimum value of 31 % occurring in April. The average monthly
relative humidity measured at Fort McMurray (1953-1994) and Mildred Lake (1997-
2000) lies between these maximum and minimum values measured at the research area.
The average monthly wind-speeds measured at Fort McMurray (1959-1994), Mildred

Lake (1997-2000) and the South Hills (2000) are shown in the bottom graphic of Figure
2.5. The average monthly wind-speed measured at the research area during 2000 is
slightly higher than the long-term averages measured at the other two locations;
however, the distribution of wind-speed over the course of the year is similar to the
long-term averages.
2.3 Instrumentation
The following section gives a brief description of the types of instrumentation used to
define the field responses of the cover at the South Hills research area. These field
responses are used for comparison to computed responses. Boese (2003) provides a
detailed description of the instrumentation.
A summary of the field instrumentation at the research area is given in Table 2.1. The
site plan shown in Figure 2.6 shows the locations of the instrumentation described in
Table 2.1. Each soil station contains a number ofFDR (frequency domain response)
soil moisture units, soil temperature probes and thermal conductivity suction sensors.
The soil station located in the middle of the D3 prototype cover contains both the
Campbell Scientific (CS) and Unsaturated Soils Group (USG) thermal conductivity
suction sensors in order to provide a comparison of their relative performance. Boese
(2003) provides details on this analysis. Figure 2.7 shows the basic layout of the soil
sensors at each soil station.
Meiers (2002) performed infiltration tests with a Guelph Permeameter during the
summers of 2000 and 2001 on the South Hills research area. These tests were done to
find the in situ, saturated hydraulic conductivity of each soil type within the research
area. A nuclear densimeter was used in May of2000 to measure the in situ density of
the soil covers and underlying shale.
Table 2.1. Summary of field instrumentation at the South Hills research area.
Number
Instrumentation Measurements Obtained
Installed
Air temperature, relative humidity, wind-speed and
Weather Station 1
direction, precipitation
Air temperature, dew-point temperature, surface
BREB Apparatus 1 soil temperature, air temperature gradient, net
radiation, wind-speed and direction
Comprised of FDR units, temperature probes and
Soil Station 4
thermal conductivity sensors
FDR Unit 32 Soil moisture
Temperature Probe 32 Soil temperature
Thermal cs 32
Conductivity Soil suction
USG 8
Sensors
Neutron Probe
13 Water content and soil density profile
Access Tube
V-Notch Weir 4 Runoff
Amount of water flowing down-slope along the
Interflow System 3
cover/overburden interface
Seepage Monitor 4 Seepage from the base of pond
Staff Gauge 2 Changes in pond levels
Evaporation Pan 3 Potential evaporation
()1 ()1 ()'1

-1'
<o
co
it
<{)
0
0 s0"'
()1
0
N
()1
0
lM
0
IYJ
()1
0
()1
0
OJ
0
<o
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
"
0
0
0
0
0
0
rn fTl fTl fTl fTl rn fTl fTl fTl rn
45800 N 45800 N
LEGEN D
• Soil S tcltion 3JO
0 Neutron Probe Access Tube q
e Evoporo tlon Po.n
e Seepo.ge Monitor
- Interflow Sys1:eM
Weo.ther Station
'vi
I
325
V V- Notch \/elr
B Bow~n Ro. tlo En~rgy Be~\o.nce App o.ro. tu s
X S1:of f Go.uge
- Runoff Chnnnel 0 20 40 60 BO 100 ;- 0
45700 N - 5 M Contour .J 45700 N
- Pond Contour SCALE IN METERS BILL'S LAKE
- Soi t Cover SysteM's Loca tion
X
~.
0 •
45600 N 45600 N
45500 N ~ 45500 N
45400 N 45400 N
45300 N 45300 N
-1' -1' ()1 ()1 ()1 (Jl (Jl (Jl ()1 U1
<o
OJ
<o
lO
0
0 s0 0
N
0
lM
0
01
0 0 0
<.D
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
"
0
0
OJ
0
0
0
0
rn fTl fTl fTl fTl rn fTl fTl fTl rn
Figure 2.6. Site plan of South Hills showing the locations of the field instrumentation. Local coordinate system.
Chapter 2: Site Background. Page 19
Data Acqu Solar Powered
•
Shale •
--- _
,.,...-.... .
-.::::--
Suction Sensors
Water Content Probes
Neutron Probe Access Tube Temperature Sensors
Figure 2.7. Layout of a soil station (after Boese, 2003).

Chapter 3
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
The computer model Soil Cover 2000 Version 5 (Unsaturated Soils Group, 2000) was
used to simulate the soil-atmosphere fluxes and associated moisture movement in the
cover systems. Soil Cover is a one-dimensional finite element model that uses a
physically based method for simulating the transient exchange of water and energy
between the atmosphere and soil surface. The principles of Darcy's, Fick's and
Fourier's Laws are used to describe the flow of liquid water, water vapor and heat,
respectively, in the soil profile below the soil/atmosphere interface. Soil Cover predicts
the evaporative flux from a saturated or an unsaturated soil surface based on
atmospheric conditions, vegetation cover, and soil response.
Wilson (1990) developed the original formulation of the soil-atmosphere model as an

explicit finite difference scheme that utilized Dalton's mass transfer method for the
calculation of evaporation at the soil surface. Joshi (1993) developed the original
program into a more rigorous finite element formulation. Machibroda (1994) modified
the original formulations to include a modified Penman method (Wilson, 1990) that
calculates the evaporative flux from an unsaturated soil surface using typical climate
data. Swanson (1995) added the oxygen diffusion algorithm and Tratch (1994)
expanded the model to include a routine to calculate plant transpiration. Newman
(1995) added the freeze/thaw capabilities and developed the DOS Version 2.0 and
Windows Version 3.0 pre and post processors as well as the revised soil property
Page 20
Chapter 3: Theoretical Background Page 21
function algorithms and executable code. Geo-Analysis 2000 Ltd. developed versions
4.xx and later.
This chapter contains the theoretical background for the Soil Cover model used in this
research.
3.1 Heat and Mass Transfer Equations
Wilson (1990) derived the heat and mass transfer equations used to model coupled one-
dimensional transient heat and mass flow in the soil profile. Fick's Law and Darcy's
Law are used to describe the flow of water vapor and liquid water, as shown in
Equation 3.1.
8hw =c 1 ~(k 8hw)+c 2 ~(D 8Pv)+S [3.1]

at w ay w ay w ay v ay
where:
hw =total head (m)
t =time (s)
c~ =coefficient of water storage with respect to the liquid phase
1
w
Pwgm2
Pw =mass density of water (kglm3)
g = acceleration due to gravity (m/s2)
m;= slope of the moisture retention curve (1/kPa)
y =position (m)
kw = hydraulic conductivity (m/s)
c~ = coefficient of water storage with respect to the water vapor phase
= (P+~)
PPw 2 gm2w
P = total gas pressure in the air phase (kPa)
Pv =the partial pressure due to water vapor (kPa)
Dv = diffusion coefficient of water vapor through the soil (kg"InfkN·s)
= ajJ(D,ap :~)
a =tortuosity factor of soil
= P213 (Lai et al., 1976)
P = cross sectional area of soil available for vapor flow

Dvap =molecular diffusivity of water vapor in air (m2/s)
T )1.1s
= 0.299 X 10-4 ( 1 + (Kimball et al., 1976)
273.15
T =temperature (K)
W v = molecular weight of water (0.18 kglkmole)
R =universal gas constant (8.314 J/mole/K)
S = root uptake sink term (m/s)
The simulation of heat flow is based on the conductive and latent heat transfer
according to Equation 3.2. A Fourier diffusion equation is used to simulate the transfer
. of heat within the soil (Wilson, 1990).
c arat =~(A.
h ay ar)-L
ay
(P+Pv)~(D
ay
a~)
ay v P v
[3.2]
where:
T = temperature (°C)
Ch = volumetric specific heat of the soil as a function of water content
(J/m3fC)
= Cv ·ps
Cv =specific heat of the soil (J/kg/°C)

Ps =bulk density of the soil (kg/m3)
A =thermal conductivity of the soil (W/rnfC)
Lv =latent heat of vaporization of water (J/kg)
The coupling of water and heat flow is accomplished through the soil vapor pressure
term (Pv) that is common to both Equations 3.1 and 3.2. The vapor pressure in the soil
(Pv) is calculated based on the total suction in the liquid phase (Equation 3.3) using the
relationship developed by Edlefsen and Anderson (1943).
[3.3]
where:
Pv = actual vapor pressure within the soil

Psv = saturation vapor pressure of the soil at its temperature, T
hr = Relative humidity of the soil surface as a function of total suction
and temperature
lf/gWv)
= e( RT
'V =total suction in the soil (m)
Some of the key assumptions inherent in the above coupled water and heat flow
equations, as summarized by Wilson (1990) and Machibroda (1994), are as follows:
• The soil particles, water and air form a continuum, the behavior of which
may be described using a representative elementary volume.
• The flow of liquid water in the soil due to osmotic suction gradients is
negligible.
• Hysterisis in the moisture content versus matric suction and the hydraulic
conductivity versus matric suction relationships is ignored.
• Heat flow due to convection is negligible.

• The temperature in the soil remains above freezing and below the boiling
point at all times.
3.2 Atmospheric Boundary Layer Coupling
Atmospheric boundary layer coupling is achieved by calculating the soil evaporative

flux. Wilson (1990) proposed a modified Penman formulation to calculate the soil
evaporative flux from the ground surface (Equation 3.4). Soil evaporative flux is a
function of the vapor pressure gradient between the cover surface and the atmosphere.
[3.4]
where:
E =vertical evaporative flux (mm/day)
r = slope of the saturation vapor pressure versus temperature curve at
the mean temperature of the air (kPafC)
Q =net radiant energy available at the surface (mm/day)
v = psychrometric constant (kPalC)
Ea = f(u)P a(B-A)
f(u)= function dependent on wind speed, surface roughness, and eddy
diffusion
= 0.35(1 +0.15Ua)
U a = wind speed (kmlhr)
Pa =vapor pressure in the air above the evaporating surface (kPa)
B =inverse of the relative humidity of the air
A =inverse of the relative humidity at the soil surface
The modified Penman formulation accounts for net radiation, wind speed, and the
relative humidity of both the air and soil surface while calculating the evaporation from
an unsaturated soil surface. The modified Penman formulation reduces to the
conventional Penman method (Penman, 1948) when the soil surface is saturated. The
relative humidity of the soil surface is evaluated by simultaneously solving the moisture
and heat flow equation and the modified Penman formulation. Soil Cover accounts for
daily variations in temperature, relative humidity, and net radiation using an assumed
sinusoidal relationship.
The temperature of the soil surface must be known in order to solve the heat flow
equation. If this data is not available, the soil surface temperature can be estimated
using a relationship proposed by Wilson (1990). The relationship is given in Equation
3.5.
[3.5]
where:
Ts = temperature at the soil surface (C)
Ta = temperature of the air above the soil surface (C)
G = Ground heat flux (mm/day of equivalent latent heat)
3.3 Vegetation Effects
Vegetation plays a significant and dynamic role in the evapotranspiration process

(Saxton, 1981). Tratch (1994) provided the theoretical development for the modeling of
vegetation. This method accounts for the effects of canopy cover, root depth and
density, and water stress.
The potential evapotranspiration is commonly defined as the maximum potential

cumulative sum ofbare soil evaporation and plant transpiration (Granger, 1989).
Because the evaporation and transpiration components must be evaluated individually,
the potential evapotranspiration flux must be distributed into its evaporation and
transpiration components. Ritchie (1972) observed that the transpiration component
was dependent upon the leaf area index (LAI) values of the plant canopy. Ritchie's
research identified three degrees of vegetation cover with the corresponding influence
on the potential transpiration flux as presented in Equations 3.6, 3.7 and 3.8.
EP = 0.0 LAI<0.1 [3.6]
EP =Eo(-0.21+0.70LAJif2 ) 0.1<LAI<2.7 [3.7]
Ep =Eo 2.7<LAI [3.8]
where:
Ep =potential transpiration rate per unit time (mm/day)
LAI = the leaf area index of the vegetative cover
= (surface_ area leaf J

surface- area soil
Eo = potential evapotranspiration rate per unit time (mm/day)
Equation 3.6 represents a bare soil where the only surface flux is evaporation. Equation
3. 7 represents a partial vegetative cover that has both evaporation and transpiration flux
conditions. Ritchie (1972) describes the LAI values that define the lower and upper
limits of the partial vegetative cover condition as 0.1 and 2.7 respectively. Equation 3.8
represents a full vegetative cover that has solely transpiration flux conditions.
Soil Cover automatically generates aLAI function for a growing season. The first day
of the growing season, the number of days in the growing season and the type of grass
quality at the site must be specified. Figure 3.1 illustrates the different values for the
LAI.
5.00
4.00
--Good --o-- Poor ____.._ Excellent I
~
~
"'0
= 3.00
~
=
-
~
<
c..
~=
2.00
~
1.00
0.00
0 100 200 300
Day
Figure 3.1. Example of the three leaf area index functions generated with Soil Cover
(SoilCover, 2000).
The mass flux due to transpiration, being a surface potential flux, must be distributed
through the soil profile occupied by the vegetative root structure. The method used in
the SoilCover program of distributing the potential transpiration is presented in Figure
3.2 as a decreasing uptake rate with depth (Prasad, 1988).
.&I potential transpiration

I
I
(surface) flux
nodal flux location

user defined upper and
lower boundaries of the +--- predetermined shape of
active root zone ~ potential root uptake
(distributed) flux
Figure 3 .2. Shape function used to calculate the potential root uptake distribution
through the active root zone (after Prasad, 1988).
The potential transpiration flux, defined in Figure 3 .2, is distributed into nodal fluxes.
The potential nodal flux rates are then dependent on the potential transpiration flux, the-
location of the node with respect to the top and bottom of the active root zone and the
node spacing. The potential nodal fluxes are then modified to determine the actual
nodal root uptake flux as required in Equation 3 .1. The potential root uptake flux is
modified by a reducing term given in Equation 3.9, which is in tum based upon the
matric suction at the nodal locations based on the relationship shown in Figure 3.3.
S=PRU·PLF [3.9]
where:
S = actual nodal root uptake sink term, required in Equation 3.1 (mls)
PRU =potential root uptake flux (m/s)
PLF = plant limiting factor
Plant Limiting Factor

(Moisture limiting point= 100 kPa, moisture wilting point= 1500 kPa)
1.2
...0
t)
(U 0.8
LL.
01
c
;:: 0.6
·e
-
:::i
c(U 0.4
ii:
0.2
0
10 100 1000 10000
Matric Suction (kPa)
Figure 3.3. Definition of the plant limiting factor from the nodal matric suction
(SoilCover, 2000).
Lack of available water and/or high evaporative demands will cause most plants to react
by closing stoma, reducing transpiration, and reducing metabolic reactions (Saxton,
1981 ). Under continued and increasing stress, the plant will reach its wilting point. The
wilting point results in leaf drop and tissue death (Saxton, 1981 ). As shown in Figure
3.3, the plant limiting factor is reduced linearly between the moisture limiting and
wilting points when suction is viewed on a log scale. The actual plant transpiration
reaches zero at the wilting point. Commonly accepted values for the limiting and
wilting points range from 50 to 100 kPa and 1500 to 2000 kPa respectively (Feddes et
al., 1978).
3.4 Finite Element Formulation
Joshi (1993) developed the finite element formulation for the SoilCover model, based
on the Galerkin method of weighted residuals. The finite element formulation required
replacing vapor pressure terms in the heat flow and moisture flow equations with
equivalent water pressures. The result is two equations with two dependent variables;
namely, pressure and temperature.
Soil Cover uses an adaptive time stepping scheme to automatically calculate the size of
the time step during each day. Joshi (1993) implemented the time step control
parameters used to calculate the initial size of the time step for the beginning of each
day. Cook (1994) modified the original time stepping scheme to provide improved
numerical stability. In the new scheme, suctions and temperatures calculated after the
first iteration are then used to back calculate what the change in time should have been
based on the Crank Nicholson marching-forward-in-time method.
Soil Cover utilizes a relative convergence scheme for the dependent variables of suction
and temperature (Cook, 1994). The relative convergence scheme is evaluated at every
node in the system. For more details regarding the finite element formulation of the
SoilCover model refer to Joshi (1993), Joshi et al. (1993), and Cook (1994).
3.5 Calculation of Runoff
Soil Cover assumes that any precipitation that cannot infiltrate the soil surface will run
off. This is handled in the finite element program on every iteration and time step as
follows:
1. If the surface is not saturated the user specified precipitation minus any internally
calculated actual evaporation will be applied at the top node as a liquid flux
boundary condition. For low precipitation with high evaporation, this boundary flux
may be negative, meaning the net flux of moisture is leaving the soil.
2. If the surface has a pore pressure of zero (i.e., saturated), then the finite element
routine applies a 0 kPa surface boundary condition. Runoff equals precipitation
minus actual evaporation and the Darcy flux infiltration across the first two points
between the top and second node in the mesh.
3. If runoff is calculated as a negative number, then, according to the mass balance
equation in step 2, sufficient flux is infiltrating past the top node-to de-saturate the
surface. When this occurs, the surface boundary condition is applied as in step 1.
It must be noted that this method has a small inherent error because, in step 2, the runoff
depends on the Darcy flux between two points just below the soil surface, not at the
surface. It is possible, therefore, to have a small water balance error when there is a
very steep hydraulic gradient between the first and second nodes in the mesh. This
happens, for example, when the surface is extremely dry and a rainfall event occurs.
The top node wets up faster than water can infiltrate to the second node. The result is a
low suction at the first node and a very high suction at the second node, causing a steep
gradient. The Darcy flux used in step 2 is based on average material properties in the
region between the top two nodes and this approximation looses accuracy when the
gradient is steep.
3.6 Soil Properties
3.6.1 Soil-Water Characteristic Curve
The soil-water characteristic curve is used to determine volumetric water contents at

various suctions. These water contents are required to determine degree of saturation as
well as soil thermal properties. The volumetric water content at zero pore-water
pressure is equivalent to the soil porosity. The negative pore water pressure that
corresponds to the point where the curve realizes a sharp drop in water content is
referred to as the air entry value (AEV). The air entry value indicates the negative pore-
water pressure at which the soil will begin to desiccate. This point may or may not be
well defined depending on the soil type. Unsaturated, fine-grained soils tend to have
flat functions with high air entry values whereas coarse-grained soils tend to have steep
functions with low air entry values.
The Soil Cover 2000 program generates a soil-water characteristic curve from the
measured data points. The derivative of Equation 3.10 generates the slope function
(Fredlund and Xing, 1994).
B('P,a,n,m) =C('P) ~ ~ G, ] [3.10]

Y
n e +('I'/ a m
where:
e = volumetric water content corresponding to the suction, 'I'
ln(1 +'I'/'Pr)
C{'P)
ln[1 + (1 000000/'Pr )]
'I'r = suction corresponding to the residual water content, er
es = saturated volumetric water content
a =suction, 'Pi, at the inflection point
m ·In(:;)
= 3.67
ei = volumetric water content at the inflection point
n 1.31 m+I 3.72. S. '¥.

1
m·Bs
s = slope of the tangent line
s = __6_.;.i_ _
'¥ p - '¥.
I
'¥p =intercept of the tangent line, on a semi-log plot, with the matric
suction axis
Figure 3.4 shows a typical soil-water characteristic curve generated by the Soil Cover
2000 program.
Soil Water Characteristic Curve

0.400 1.00E-01
100~02
..
0.350
-
d
G)
0.300
1.ooe.;o3
1•00E•04
Q.
·~
--
~ 0.250
c
Q)
c 0.200
1.()0Eo,()S
::.
0
c
15c
0 1lJOE.06
0
i.
-~"'
G)
0.150
0.100
1~07
G)
c.
0
0
1.00E-oa
0.050
0.000 +------+---4----+-...,.---i...,.---+----..;.._-t-..;.._-+---==-+ 1:00E-10

0 0 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000
Matric SuCtion (kPa)
Figure 3.4. Soil-water characteristic curve generated using SoilCover 2000 program.
3.6.2 Hydraulic Conductivity Function
The hydraulic conductivity reflects the ability of the soil to transmit moisture. Moisture
flow in soils can be represented by a series of water filled conduits. Under saturated
conditions, all the pathways are available for flow and the hydraulic conductivity is at
its highest value. Decreasing the water content (i.e., increasing the suction) in effect
reduces the size and number of water filled conduits, hence reducing the hydraulic
conductivity of the soil. A description of the methods for determining the hydraulic
conductivity functions used for this thesis appears in Chapter 4.
Chapter 4
KEY PARAMETERS
This chapter describes specific findings on three key input parameters used in the
Soil Cover modeling program. These variables are the soil-water characteristic curve,
hydraulic conductivity function, and vegetation. Further research into these parameters
was necessary so that they could be better defined for use in the program. These
improvements allowed for more accurate modeling of the water movement within the
soil covers.
4.1 Soil-Water Characteristic Curve
The data to create the soil-water characteristic curves used for this thesis was obtained
from in situ measurements of volumetric water content and pore-water pressure at
various depths within each prototype cover. These measurements were compared to
soil-water characteristic curves obtained from a laboratory procedure using a pressure
plate apparatus for suctions up to 500 kPa and an osmotic desiccator for suctions greater
than 500 kPa. Boese (2003) describes the details regarding the theory and procedures
involved with the determination of the soil-water characteristic curves in the laboratory.
The van Genuchten (1980) and Fredlund and Xing (1994) equations are commonly used
to describe the shape of a soil-water characteristic curve. These equations create an
Page 34
Chapter 4: Literary Background Page 35
excellent fit for unimodal soil-water characteristic curves; however, the soils used to
cover the overburden on the South Hills research area have heterogeneous pore systems.
A pore system is heterogeneous if the pore-size distribution of a representative
elementary area (Bear and Bachmat, 1991) cannot be correctly described with a
unimodal soil-water characteristic curve (Dumer, 1994). Figure 4.1, taken from Dumer
(1994), shows examples of the ways a heterogeneous pore system can vary from a
simple sigmoidal soil-water characteristic curve. Dumer discusses data from Othmer et
al. (1991), DeJong et al. (1992), Schj0nning (1985), Jacobsen (1989), Sharma and
Uehara (1968), Smettem and Kirby (1990), King (1965), Ragab et al. (1981) and
Stephens and Rehfeldt (1985). Biological processes (e.g., root growth) may lead to
secondary pore systems in the large-pore range in soils of any texture [Figure 4.1 (top
left)]. Coarse-graded soils tend to have a significant fraction of pores over a wide range
of tensions, as shown in Figure 4.1 (top right). Figure 4.1 (bottom right) shows
observed soil-water characteristics for unconsolidated sands. Aggregation processes in
loamy soils may lead to pore-size distributions that cause typical fitting problems in the
mid-pore range, as illustrated in Figure 4.1 (bottom left). All of these discrepancies
from a unimodal soil-water characteristic curve appear in the measured data collected
from the South Hills research area.
In order to describe these multi-modal soil-water characteristic curves using the

traditional equations, Dumer ( 1992) introduced the concept of superimposing multiple
van Genuchten equations (1980), known as the multi-van Genuchten model. Peters and
Klavetter (1988) previously used the superposition of two unimodal pore systems to
describe the hydraulic properties of fractured rock. Othmer et al. (1991) and Ross and
Smettem (1993) used this approach to describe the soil-water characteristics of soils
with distinct secondary pore systems. Pruess et al. (1990) modeled the coupled
transport of water, heat and air in partially saturated porous rock by explicitly
considering fracture effects. They compared the results with those obtained by treating
the porous medium as a single continuum and derived simple criteria for the
applicability of the effective continuum approximation. Wang and Narasimhan (1985,
1990) addressed the problem of finding effective parameter values and compared
fractures in tuff with macropores in soil. Kastanek (200 1) noted that it is possible to
superimpose other unimodal soil-water characteristic equations in the same manner as
Dumer (1992) suggested for the van Genuchten equation (1980). For this thesis, the
Fredlund and Xing equation (1994) is used because it is the one programmed into the
Soil Cover 2000 model.
.........
c
Q)
.........
c
0
(.)
L..
Q)
.........
ro
s
• •
Suction
Figure 4.1. Deviations between soil-water characteristic data and fitted unimodal soil-
water characteristic curves (after Dumer, 1994). Circled areas indicate where the
measured data diverges from a unimodal soil-water characteristic curve.
Figure 4.2 illustrates the unimodal van Genuchten and Fredlund and Xing equations
plotted along with the measured in situ data and porosity range. The measured in situ
data points were obtained by plotting together the suctions and volumetric water
contents measured at the same time at a similar location in the soil profile. For this
example, the measured data is for the peat of the D 1 prototype cover at 16 em depth
during 2000 and 2001. Both equations create a reasonable match when just fitted to the
in situ data. However, when fitted to both the average porosity (59%) and the in situ
o In situ Data- D1 Prototype Cover: 16 em Depth
--Measured Porosity Range
70 ~-- ---~ ---~ .........,........,.,,van Genuehten- fitted to in situ data only (R2 = 2.37)
-
~
-60
-+-'
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,Fredlund and Xing -fitted to in situ data only (R2
- - v a n Genuehten- fitted to porosity and in situ data (R2 = 1.67)

=2.47)
c::
~c::
50 - • Fredlund and Xing- fitted to porosity and in situ data (R2 =1.26)
0
':: 40
a>
tti
~ 30
(.)
't:
a> 20
-+-'
E
~ 10
>
0
1.0E-02 1.0E+OO 1.0E+02 1.0E+04 1.0E+06
Suction (kPa)
Figure 4.2. In situ water content vers~s suction data fitted by unimodal equations for
the soil-water characteristic curve.
--
~
-+-'
70
60
------~--
o In situ Data- D1 Prototype Cover: 16 em Depth
-Measured Porosity Range

c::
a> -Multi (3) Fredlund and Xing (R2 = 2.41)
c:: 50
-+-'
0
0
..... 40
a>
tti
~ 30
(.)
't:
-+-' 20
a>
E
~ 10 -~
0
> 0
1.0E-02 1.0E+OO 1.0E+02 1.0E+04 1.0E+06
Suction (kPa)
Figure 4.3. In situ water content versus suction data fitted by the multi-Fredlund and
· Xing model.
data the match is far from adequate. By superimposing multiple Fredlund and Xing
equations (1994), referred to as the multi-Fredlund and Xing model, a much better
match is realized (Figure 4.3).
4.2 Hydraulic Conductivity Function
The hydraulic conductivity function is one of the most difficult to measure. It can vary
more than 10 orders of magnitude when considering soils that range from gravel to clay
(Fredlund et al., 1994). As a result, prediction methods are frequently used to estimate
the shape of the conductivity function from the more easily measured soil-water
characteristic. Errors in conductivity estimations can arise from either an invalid
prediction model for a given soil, or from an incorrect description of the soil-water
characteristic data (Dumer, 1994). For these reasons, extreme care was taken to
correctly model the hydraulic conductivity function for each soil used on the South
Hills research area.
Evaluation of the hydraulic conductivity for the unsaturated soils on the South Hills
research area was based on the instantaneous profile method (Richards and Weeks,
1953; Weeks and Richards, 1967; Daniel, 1983; Eching et al., 1994). The instantaneous
profile method uses the measured daily changes in water content and suction to
calculate the hydraulic conductivity using Darcy's equation. The saturated hydraulic
conductivity and the hydraulic conductivity at suctions of0.5 and 1.0 kPa were
measured during the summers of 2000 and 2001 using a Guelph permeameter (Meiers,
2002). This data was compared to the function created using the Fredlund et al. (1994)
equation. The created function was estimated from the multi-Fredlund and Xing soil-
water characteristic curve and the average saturated hydraulic conductivity measured by
Meiers (2002). Figure 4.4 shows the hydraulic conductivity function created for the
"shallow" peat, referring to the top 10 em of the peat layer. The figure shows that the
Fredlund et al. (1994) equation produces a good match to the measured data.
1.0E+OO -Fredlund et al. (1994} Hydraulic Conductivity
1.0E-01 H R2=2.47 I Function - Shallow Peat
<>
Instantaneous Profile Method Results- D1
-S
Prototype Cover: 11 em Depth
0 1.oE-02
•
-
Instantaneous Profile Method Results - D2
1.0E-03
~~
Prototype Cover: 7.5 em Depth
~ 1.0E-04 -~Guelph Permearneter- Saturated Hydraulic

>
i= 1.0E-05 ~ ~
Conductivity Range
0 ,.<> ; -Guelph Permearneter - Unsaturated Hydraulic

S 1.0E-06 Conductivity Range for a Suction of 0.5 kPa
~
~ 1.0E-07 l' ...-~ ..... Guelph Permearneter - Unsaturated Hydraulic
~ ~...J
(.) Conductivity Range for a Suction of 1.0 kPa
o 1.0E-08
::; ~\
~ 1.0E-09 . <>
c 1.0E-10 " ~ <:1>
d>
""'
> 0
:.: 1.0E-11
1.0E-12
1.0E-13 ~
1.0E-02 1.0E-01 1.0E+OO 1.0E+01 1.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+04 1.0E+05
SUCTION (kPa)
Figure 4.4. In situ unsaturated hydraulic conductivity versus suction data, measured
during the summer of 2000, fitted by a hydraulic conductivity function estimated from
the multi-Fredlund and Xing soil-water characteristic curve.
4.3 Vegetation
There were two predominant types of vegetation found on the South Hills research area
during 2000. Setaria viridis, commonly known as green foxtail, was the predominant
vegetation found on the three prototype covers; while on the Bill's Lake Site, Bromus
inermis, or smooth brome, was the main vegetation. Both are described in more detail
in the following paragraphs.
Green foxtail is an annual grass and a common weed of cultivated land in Western
Canada (Banting et al., 1973). Native to Europe, it was introduced into Canada in 1821
(Blackshaw et al., 1981) through ship ballasts (Douglas et al., 1985). Green foxtail is
characterized as being one of the most prevalent weed seeds in the world (Holman,
2001), with each plant being able to produce over 34000 seeds (Province of British
Columbia, 1998). It grows erect (but may sometimes be curved at the base) to a height
of 30 to 100 em. The leaves are flat, up to 10 mm wide, and their ligules are half
membrane and half a terminal fringe ofhairs (Pojar and Mackinnon, 1994). Green
foxtail is able to germinate over a large range of temperatures. Anderson (1968)
reported that Lauer (1953) obtained some germination at constant temperatures from 7
to 40°C, with the optimum germination temperature between 20 to 30°C. Yabuki and
Miyagawa (1959) obtained the best germination with a diurnal alteration in temperature
from 15 to 35°C. Vanden Born (1971) noted that germination occurred readily at
temperatures from 15 to 35°C but at 10°C there was no sign of germination for a period
of nearly four weeks. Fifty percent of seeds germinate after 7 days at a temperature
15°C (Vanden Born, 1971 ). Seedlings emerge readily from shallow planting depths of
between 0.5 and 8 em (Vanden Born, 1971 and Holman, 2001 ), with the best emergence
occurring from a depth of 4 em (1.5 in) (Dawson and Bruns, 1962). There is little
chance of emergence from seedlings planted below 10 em (Dawson and Bruns, 1962).
Fifty percent of germinated seeds emerge 17 days after germination at a temperature of
15°C (Vanden Born, 1971 ). Green foxtail exhibits peaks in emergence following
rainfall (Banting et al1973, Douglas et al1985). The roots are fibrous with most of the
root biomass close to the soil surface. Orwick and Schreiber (1975) found that the
seminal root growth of green foxtail, exposed to 16 hours of light and 8 hours of dark
per day, to be at a rate of approximately 9 mm per day. Figure 4.5 shows the root
biomass distribution within the prototype cover systems as measured by van Reese and
Jackson (2002). They noted that most of the root biomass was concentrated within the
top 15 em of the cover. Figure 4.6 shows a picture of a green foxtail plant and where it
is growing on the study area.
Smooth Brame is one of the best hay and pasture grasses in the world. It is excellent
for the control of soil erosion because of its interlocking root system. Introduced into
the United States and Canada from Hungary in 1880 and from Russia in 1896, smooth
brome is a strongly rhizomatous, sod-forming perennial grass, which can grow between
0.4 and 1.2 m tall (Duke, 1983 and USGS, 2001). Its leaves are flat, 9 to 33 em long
and 4.5 to 13 mm wide, and glabrous, with its ligules being membranous and lacerate.
Each plant can produce over 10000 seeds. Sather (1987) reported that Dibbern (194 7)
found that Bromus roots could reach a depth of 4.7 feet (1.4 m). Lamba et al. (1949)
found 21% by weight of brome roots between depths of 16 and 40 inches (40 to 100
em), 10% between 8 and 16 inches (20 to 40 em) and 64o/o in the top 8 inches (20 em).
This heavy concentration of total root mass near the surface is the result of smooth
brome' s creeping rhizomatous habit (Sather, 1987). Smooth brome grows between
temperatures of 4.3 to 19.9°C, becoming dormant during the warmer months and,
depending on soil moisture, may regrow in September or October (Duke, 1983 and
USGS, 2001 ). Smooth brome is reported to tolerate alkali, disease, drought, frost,
fungi, grazing, heavy soil, high pH, mycrobacteria, salt, viruses, and weeds (Duke,
1978). It can also tolerate flooding for up to 24 days (USGS, 2001 ). Figure 4. 7 shows a
picture of a smooth brome plant and the location where the brome is growing on the
research area.
0-15
- 15-30
E
-CJ
-
..c::
c
c.
CD
30-45
45-60
1.4
0 20 40 60 80 100
Percentage of Root Biomass(%)
Figure 4.5. Green foxtail root biomass distribution within the prototype cover systems
(after van Rees and Jackson, 2002).
Chapter 4: Literary Background Page42
Figure 4.6. Picture of green foxtail on the prototype covers with an inset of a picture of
a single green foxtail plant (inset from Province of British Columbia, 1998).
Figure 4.7. Picture of smooth brome on the Bill's Lake cover system. The inset is a
picture of the head of a single smooth brome plant (inset from Perry, 2001 ).
Chapter 5
FIELD RESPONSE MODELING
Field response modeling requires the amalgamation of measured data and theory to
accurately simulate the processes occurring in the environment. Field responses can be
defined as changes in moisture content, matric suction, and temperature within the soil
cover. In addition, field responses include both potential and actual evaporation rates,
infiltration and runoff, and plant transpiration. The objectives of the field response
modeling are to establish a set of calibrated soil propet1ies to be used as the basis for
predictive modeling and to evaluate the ability of the Soil Cover model to describe
existing conditions through the comparison of computed and measured field responses.
The ability to accurately describe field conditions must be demonstrated before the
model can be used to predict future cover performance (Swanson, 1995).
The instrumentation used to measure the field responses of the cover system was
described in Chapter 2.
5.1 Model Details
To simulate the field conditions, the soil-water characteristic curves and hydraulic
conductivity functions were fitted to the measured in situ data, as described in Chapter
4. An estimation of the growing behavior of the vegetation was also made, based on
observations and research. The following paragraphs expand on this information to
Page 43
Chapter 5: Field Response Modeling Page 44
give a more detailed description of the models.
5.1.1 Simulation Period and Initial Conditions
The simulation period selected for calibration runs for 157 days starting on May 19,
2000 and ending on October 22, 2000. This time covers the period during which the
Bowen Ratio Energy Balance (BREB) apparatus was fully operational during 2000.
The initial soil temperature and suction profiles were generated from the measurements
taken within the covers at the four soil stations at midnight of May 18, 2000.
5.1.2 Cover Stratigraphy
Figure 5.1 shows the design for the four soil cover systems. The actual material depths
at the instrumentation sites were measured during installation of the instrumentation
stations (Figure 5.2). Prototype covers Dl and D2 differed only slightly from the
design. The peat on D3 was 5 em thinner than the design thickness, while the till layer
was found to be 25 em thicker than the design. The peat/till mix layer at Bill's Lake
(BL) was 25 em thinner than the design had specified at the location of the
instrumentation station. Additional measurements taken at BL since 1999 have found
that the cover varies from 150 em near the top of the slope to 50 em near the base of the
slope. This variation in depth may be due to consolidation and erosion of the cover
since construction or grading of the cover at the time of construction.
More complex layering was also defined in the cover based on an analysis of the soil-
water characteristic curves created using the measured data. These curves showed that
the top half of the peat layer, referred to as shallow peat, had different soil-water
characteristics from the peat below, referred to as deep peat. The in situ soil-water
characteristic curve for the peat surrounding the D3 instrumentation station differed
from those of the peat used on D 1 and D2. A layer of peat/till mix was also located
between two layers of till within the D3 cover. This layer of peat/till mix was placed
during construction and maybe due to accidental mixing during the cover placement.
Finally, the soil-water characteristic curves at BL showed that there were three distinct
layers of peat/till mix.
Dl D2 D3 BL
0 0 0 0-..---~---,
20 15
50
DEPTII
(em)
1
LEGEND
PEAT
TILL
PEAT I TILL MIX
SHALE
NOT TO SCALE
Figure 5.1. Design ofthe four soil cover systems used on the South Hills research area.
Dl D2 D3 BL
0
Po 10
21
48
60
DEPTH 75
(em)
LEGEND
Shallow Peat O Soil Suction Sensor
Deep Peat Water Content Probe
D3 Peat l:l. Temperature Sensor
Till
Shallow Peat I Till Mix
Intermediate Peat I Till Mix
Deep Peat I Till Mix
NOT TO SCALE
Shale
Figure 5.2. The actual dimensions of the soil cover systems and the locations of the
instruments placed within the covers.
5.1.3 Boundary Conditions
5.1.3.1 Surface Boundary Conditions

Soil Cover requires daily climate data to estimate surface evaporation rates and surface
temperatures. Daily data supplied from the weather station included maximum and
minimum air temperature, maximum and minimum relative humidity, average wind
speed and precipitation amount and duration. The radiometer attached to the BREB
apparatus supplied the daily net radiation. Soil Cover accounts for the daily variations in
temperature, relative humidity, and net radiation using an assumed sinusoidal
relationship. The maximum time step used for the models was 1000 seconds.
A one-dimensional simulation of moisture movement is based on the assumption that

the cover systems are placed on a relatively flat location and are not influenced by the
surrounding area. However, the test areas used for this project were sloped. This allows
for any runoff generated on the slope above the soil stations to flow onto the measuring
site, giving the soil near the stations access to additional water later in the storm,
thereby decreasing the net runoff. Additionally, surface depressions on the covers may
create additional storage for precipitation, further increasing the chance for water to
infiltrate the soil. Therefore, it was assumed that no runoff was generated during the
field response modeling. This assumption will need to be re-evaluated in future
modeling.
5.1.3.2 Lower Boundary Conditions

The saline-sodic shale was assumed to be impermeable for the model calibration
process. This assumption was made because of the low measured saturated hydraulic
conductivity of the shale (Meiers, 2002). Therefore, no water was allowed to cross the
cover/shale interface. This assumption was supported by measurements obtained from
the interflow system. The interflow system captures water running along the till/shale
interface on the prototype cover site. Thus, capturing water in the interflow system
indicates that water is not inclined to infiltrate the shale.
The daily-measured soil temperatures at the base of each cover were used to set the
lower boundary temperature conditions for the models.
5.1.4 Vegetation
The information presented in Chapter 4 was used to simulate the water usage of the
vegetation grown on the four cover systems. The following paragraphs summarize the
assumptions made using this information.
For D1, D2 and D3 it was assumed that the green foxtail seeds germinated after 7 days
with an average air temperature of 15°C, and emerged 17 days later. This emergence
date was assumed to be the start of the growing season. The roots were started at a
depth of 1 em and extended by 1 em per day from the germination date until the end of
the growing season, or until intercepting the till/shale interface. The end of the growing
season was set as the first day of freezing temperatures after the start of the season. The
leaf area index was estimated from observations. Using these assumptions, the growing
season for D1, D2 and D3 was assumed to run from June 28 until September 21, 2000.
From observations, D 1 and D2 were estimated to have "good" grass with a maximum
leaf area index (LAI) of two. D3 was assumed to have "poor" grass .with a maximum
LAI of one.
To simulate the growth of smooth brome on the BL cover system it was assumed that
the existing plants began to regrow when the mean daily air temperature stayed above
4.3°C. The roots were extended at a rate of 1 em per day until the mean daily air
temperature increased above 19 .9°C, or until the shale barrier was reached. The end of
the growing season was assumed to occur when the mean daily air temperature dropped
below 4.3°C. The leaf area index was estimated from observations. Using these
assumptions, the growing season for Bill's Lake was assumed to run from April 30 until
October 1, 2000. Since the growing season began prior to the start of the simulation
period it was assumed that the grass was already rooted to a depth of 20 em. From
observations, Bill's Lake was assumed to have "good" grass with a maximum LAI of
two.
5.1.5 Soil Properties
Table 5.1 summarizes the properties of the soils used for the cover systems. The
porosity of the soils was calculated from dry bulk density measurements taken using a
nuclear densimeter during May of2000. Guelph Permeameter tests, conducted during
the summer of 2000, were used to measure the saturated hydraulic conductivity of each
soil (Meiers, 2002). Finally, the specific gravity of each soil was measured during
laboratory testing (Boese, 2003).
Table 5.1 Summary of soil properties used for the soil cover systems.
Saturated Hydraulic Specific
Porosity, n (%)
Conductivity, KsAr (cm/s) Gravity,
Soil Maximum minimum maximum minimum Gs
4
Shallow Peatt 69.4 47.8 1.3 X 10-L 2.3 X 10 2.61
Deep Peat 69.4 47.8 1.3 X 10-L 2.3x104 2.61
D3 Peat 51.7 46.4 7.0 X 10-3 1.7 X 10-3 2.61
Till 64.4 43.7 5.5 X 10-3 1.3 X 10-1 2.62
Peat/Till Mix~ 45.8 34.7 1.4 X 10-3 1.7 X 10-6 2.66
tUnable to measure differences for those parameters in the table between the shallow
and deep peat due to the thinness of the layers. Separations were based on differences
in the soil-water characteristic curves.
~No significant differences measured for those parameters in the table for the shallow,
intermediate and deep peat/till mix soils. Separations were based on differences in the
soil-water characteristic curves.
5.1.5.1 Soil-Water Characteristic Curve

Figure 5.3 shows the calibrated soil-water characteristic curves used for the simulations.
These curves were generated by fitting them to the measured in situ data; using the
Chapter 5: Field Response Modeling Page49
methods described in Chapter 4. Appendix A contains the graphs used to compare the
in situ and laboratory measurements to the calibrated soil-water characteristic curves.
Shallow Peat
I Deep Peat
D3 Peat
-Till
0.1
0 1 100 10000 1000000

Suction (kPa}
b) 0.6 ,..----------------,--------r----------,
-Shallow Peat/Till Mix
... 0.5 + - - - - - - - + - - - - - - - - - !
...s:::s:::
Q) - - I Intermediate Peat/Till Mix
8 0.4 ~~~~~~~-"!ll==·""'~··L-----~ -Deep Peat/Till Mix
...
~
Q)
~
._
~-------~-------~1
~ 0.3 -+-------+---'!r----=----!!!l.------311~------+-------------i
...
(.)
"i:
Q)
E
:::::s
0
> 0.1
0 1 100 10000 1000000

Suction (kPa}
Figure 5.3. Soil-water characteristic curves for the a) peat and till b) peat/till mix.
5.1.5.2 Hydraulic Conductivity Function

Figure 5.4 shows the calibrated hydraulic conductivity functions used for the
simulations. These curves were generated by fitting them to the measured in situ data;
using the methods described in Chapter 4. Appendix A contains the graphs used to
compare the instantaneous profile method and Guelph permeameter (Meiers, 2002)
results to the calibrated hydraulic conductivity functions.
a) 1.0E+OO
-
.!!? 1.0E-02
Shallow Peat
Deep Peat
--
E
(J
>. 1.0E-04
·:;
I
03 Peat
;:
(J
1.0E-06 -Till
:::J
"a
c
0 1.0E-08
(J
.~
:::J
...
ca
1.0E-1 0 . ..
"a
>.
J: 1.0E-12
1.0E-14
0 1 100 10000 1000000
Suction (kPa)
b) 1.0E+OO
-
.!!? 1.0E-02
.•.,.•••.,,..••..,Shallow Peat!Til Mix
--">
E
(J
>. 1.0E-04
;:
- - I Intermediate Peatmll Mix
(J
1.0E-06 -Deep Peatmll Mix
:::J
"a
c
0 1.0E-08
(J
.~
:::J 1.0E-1 0
~
"a
>.
J: 1.0E-12
1.0E-14
0 100 10000 1000000
Suction (kPa)
Figure 5.4. Hydraulic conductivity functions for the a) peat and till b) peat/till mix.
5.1.5.3 Thermal Properties

The thermal conductivity versus gravimetric water content and specific heat versus
gravimetric water content functions for the till soil were estimated using the Johansen
(1975) method and the deVries (1963) method, respectively. The functions for the peat
soils were taken from Monteith and Unsworth (1990). This peat function will need to
be re-evaluated in future modeling as the 'peat' used for the prototype covers is not a
conventional peat, but a peat/mineral mix. The peat/till mix soils are constituted of 1
part peat for every 2 parts till, therefore, the thermal properties were assumed to be the
weighted average of the peat and till functions. Figure 5.5 shows the thermal
conductivity versus gravimetric water content functions and Figure 5.6 shows the
specific heat versus gravimetric water content functions.
1.6
/ Peat
-
(..)
C!
~
E 1.2
1.4
/
v ./ ·······Peat/Till
--Till
~ 1.0
·s;
~
(.)
::J 0.8 1/
"C
(..)
Ci
c:
0
0.6 I
;......-
#
;
E 0.4
/:'
~·······...,····
Cl) ..... ··· 1........

~ ...... !
1- .! .
0.2 V.. .·
!·
0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
Gravimetric Water Content
Figure 5.5. Thermal conductivity versus gravimetric water content functions for soils
used to construct the cover systems.
3.5E+06
3.0E+06 .
-..
o 2.5E+06 ft .
p
, ..
0 .·
cw;
_§
::::!.
.....cu 2.0E+06 .
~
,
CD
~ 1.5E+06
.
/
It:
"(j
CD
0; 1.0E+06
Peat
5.0E+05 ------ · Peatrnll
--Till
O.OE+OO I
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7

Gravimetric Water Content
Figure 5.6. Specific heat versus gravimetric water content functions for soils used to
construct the cover systems.
5.2 Model Results
5 .2.1 Water Balance Components
Figure 5. 7 presents the full water balance for the 157 day simulation of the D 1 cover,
showing cumulative precipitation (Precip.), actual evaporation (AE) and transpiration
(AT) and potential evaporation (PE). Calculated potential evaporation for the five
months was 508 mm, with 293 mm of actual evapotranspiration.
The water balance for the D2 cover was similar to that for D 1. Calculated potential
evaporation for the model season was 508 mm, with 292 mm of actual
evapotranspiration. The calculated potential evaporation for the D3 and BL covers

were 508 mm and 507mm, respectively, while the actual evapotranspiration amounts
were 296 mm and 300 mm, respectively. Appendix B contains the water balance
figures for the D2, D3 and BL covers.
300
~
~ Precip. j
200
e
.s.w 100 -~
_,... _,.--
0
_,. J
z
<(
0 I
~ -.....
~~ ~
...J
<(
- AT
£D -100 ---...._
~
~ r--.-_
w
1- r-AE-
~-200
w
~-300 ~
5 '
i-400 ~ ~ .....___
:::»
0
-500
PE --
r---..-.... r-
-600
19-May-00 13-Jun-00 8-Jul-00 2-Aug-00 27-Aug-00 21-Sep-00 16-0ct-00 10-Nov-00
Figure 5.7. Calculated water balance components for the D1 prototype cover.
Figure 5.8 compares the calculated, cumulative potential evaporation to that measured
on the BL and prototype covers using evaporation pans, for the period from June 28 to
September 1, 2000. Since all four covers had similar amounts of calculated potential
evaporation the shape of the D 1 curve in the figure is representative of all the modeled
covers. The comparison period is the length of time that the evaporation pans were
operational during 2000. The amount of potential evaporation measured from the
evaporation pan located on the prototype covers during this period was 254 mm, only 7
mm less than that calculated (261 mm). However, the amount of potential evaporation
measured from the Bill's Lake evaporation pan was substantially less (191 mm). This
drastic decrease between the measured potential evaporation at the prototype covers and
that at Bill's Lake is likely due to the microclimate created by the pond at the toe of the
BL cover and the relative shelter of the BL cover from the wind. These factors explain
some of the difficulties simulating the BL cover. These difficulties will be discussed in
more detail in Section 5.2.4.4.
300
-E
.§.
01 Cover (Calculated)
z 250 .··
0 ···· · Prototype Evaporation Pan
i=
~ - Bill's Lake Evaporation Pan
0
c.. 200 ___...
~
w
..J
c( 150
,.,..__
~ :· ....
v
_....
v ~
i=
z . ·... ~/''
w
1-
0
v
c.. 100
w
>
i=
c( -~,·····/
..J
:J
50
v
v
:E
:J
0
0
28-Jun 8-Jul 18-Jul 28-Jul 7-Aug 17-Aug 27-Aug 6-Sep
Figure 5.8. Comparison of cumulative potential evaporation calculated using the D1

cover model and measured from the prototype and Bill's Lake evaporation pans.
5.2.2 Matric Suction Responses
Comparisons between computed and measured matric suction response at depths of 5

em, 16 em and 34 em within the D 1 cover are shown in Figure 5.9. From the start of
the run until August the matric suction of the cover soils was, except for a week in the
middle of June, within the operational range of the suction sensors (10- 1000 kPa). For
this time period, the model results closely matched the field measurements. During
most of August, the matric suction of the cover soils was higher than the operational
range. When the suction dropped back within operational limits during September, it
took almost three weeks for the measured and modeled values to converge again. This
may have been the time required for the suction sensors to equalize after going offline.
Vegetation was simulated to begin transpiring on June 28, 2000. After this date, the
matric suctions within the soil layers began to increase as the plant roots extended
within them and removed the stored water. Matric suctions rose consistently until the
beginning of August, at which point the suctions within most of the cover were around
the assumed moisture wilting point of 1500 kPa. The start of August also corresponded
with a decrease in the rate of water loss from the cover showing that the vegetation
transpiration rate was significantly decreased, and that most of the water loss after this
point was due to evaporation.
The D2, D3 and BL cover systems presented similar suction patterns to those of D 1.
Their suction comparison figures are available in Appendix B.
5.2.3 Soil Temperature Responses
Comparisons between measured and calculated soil temperature responses for the D 1
· cover are shown in Figure 5.10. The comparison is made on a daily basis for three
depths within the cover. The general trend is a gradual dampening of the temperature
response with depth. The calculated temperatures within the till layer were less
dynamic than the measured values. This may be due to the till layer having a slightly
higher thermal conductivity than that approximated using the method proposed by
Johansen (1975).
The D2, D3 and BL cover systems presented similar soil temperature responses to those
ofD1. Their soil temperature figures are available in Appendix B.
100000~--------------------------------------------~
SHALLOW PEAT·
5 em DEPTH -Computed Values
10000 - = t - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . . . . . - - - - - - - - - • Measured Values
' Suction Sensor Range
100000~--------------------------------------------~
DEEP PEAT. I
I
_ 16cm DEPTH
~ 1::_~-_-.-----~---~----.-_-.---------~.~--_-_-_-_-_-_-~-----~--~~
z
0
t=
u
::l
U)
100000?----------------------------------------------~
TILL·
34cm DEPTH
!
10000~-----------------------------------------------~
1000,
100~~--------------~----------------~
1: r"
4-May-00 23-Jun-00 12-Aug-00 1-0ct-00 20-Nov-00
Figure 5.9. Comparison of the matric suction measured by Boese (2003) and computed
matric suction responses at three depths in the Dl soil cover.
20~------------------------------------------------------~
SHALLOW PEAT -
• Measured Values
20
DEEP PEAT-
-
16 em DEPTH
( .) 15
Q,_.
w
0:::
::l
....
<(
10
0:::
w
Q. 5
:e
....w
0
20
TILL-
43em DEPTH
15
0+-------------~------------~------------~------------~
4-May-00 23-Jun-00 12-Aug-00 1-0ct-00 20-Nov-00
Figure 5.1 0. Comparison of soil temperature response measured by Boese (2003) and
computed soil temperature responses at three depths within the D 1 cover system.
5.2.4 Volumetric Water Content and Storage Responses
5.2.4.1 D1 Cover System

Comparisons between the computed and measured water volumes within each layer of
the D1 cover for the five-month period are shown in Figure 5.11. The measured and
computed water volumes were calculated by integrating the daily volumetric water
content values over the thickness of each layer. The figure clearly shows that the
shallow peat layer is the most dynamic due to its exposure to the atmosphere. The
atmospheric effects are dampened within the deeper soils by the layers above them.
The till is the most dampened cover layer, saturating slowly at the start of the season
and desiccating only when the plant roots are able to remove the stored water. Little of
the water removed from the till layer is lost directly to evaporation. Vegetation effects
will be discussed further in Section 5.3.
All three layers were adequately simulated by the model. However, the modeled
volume of water within the till layer diverges after August 8. This occurred because the
soil-water characteristic curves and hydraulic conductivity functions were created to
adequately simulate similar soils used for the four soil cover systems. As would be
expected, there are slight variations in the soil properties of the D 1 till layer with depth,
and between all the till layers in general. On average, the D1 cover had slightly lower
residual water content than that of the generalized soil-water characteristic curve,
barring the model from desiccating to the same extent as measured in the field.
Figure 5.12 shows the volumetric water content profiles created at the cover's highest
(WET) and lowest (DRY) levels of saturation, and during a rainfall event late in the
model season (WETTING). The three profiles show the importance of the surface layer
of the cover system for controlling water movement. The wet profile shows the effects
of a large rainfall event (28 mm) on an already highly saturated soil. The water from
this event quickly penetrates the entire peat layer but is mostly blocked from
immediately entering the till. This same pattern is seen in the wetting profile.
100
WET DRY WET lNG
SHALLOW PEAT -Computed Values
90 - 10 em Thick 0.9
• Measured Values
80 -Porosity 0.8
70 0.7
60 0.6
-E
E
._
50
40
30
20
~ ~ ~~
\l\._ A
"
"""'
..
f\,.
J, ~~
.-.-..
"'V¥
"'
-----
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
-u
10 0.1 CD
<( "C
._
w 0 0
0:: 1-
<( z
110
DEEP PEAT
w
t:::: 1-
z 100 11 em Thick 0.9 z
:::::» 90 0.8 0
0:: 0
80
w 0.7 0::
c.. 70 w
w 0.6 1-
~
60
:E 0.5
:::::» 50
-1 0.4 0
0
>
0::
w
1-
40
30
20
10
- -- ....._....._
~• ~
~ ~ ~
0.3
0.2
0.1
02
1-
w
:E
:::::»
~
-1
0 0 0
w >
> 270 w
i= TILL C)
~
<( 240 27 em Thick 0.9
-1
:::::» 210 0.8 w
:E 180
0.7 >
<(
:::::»
0 0.6
150
0.5
120
0.4
90
0.3
60 0.2
30
- 0.1
0 0
4-May-00 23-Jun-00 12-Aug-00 1-0ct-00 20-Nov-00
Figure 5 .11. Cumulative water volume per unit area in each of the D 1 cover layers.
The arrows marked "WET", "DRY", and "WETTING" correspond to the volumetric
water content profiles shown in Figure 5.12.
--
E
:I:
0.2
+ DRY WETTING
1- PROFILE PROFILE
D.. 0.3
w
c
+ I
Solid Lines- Computed Values
Dashed Lines- Saturation
0.4
Markers - Measured Values
+ +
0.0 0.3 0.6 0.0 0.3 0.6 0.0 0.3
VOLUMETRIC WATER CONTENT

Figure 5.12. Comparison of volumetric water content profiles measured by Boese
(2003) and computed volumetric water content profiles for the D 1 cover system.
However, with the wetting profile the rainfall event (21.8 mm on September 18, 2000)
occurs on a much drier soil. The dryness of the soil decreases the hydraulic
conductivity substantially, slowing the infiltration rate. Because of this slower rate, it
takes over a week for the water to penetrate to the base of the peat layer. The dry
profile shows how the surface of the cover desiccates during dry weather, dropping the
hydraulic conductivity. This creates a barrier at the surface, blocking water from
evaporating from depth.
Figure 5.13 shows the overall change in storage within the D1 cover. A maximum
deficit of 40.5 mm was calculated at the end of August. The water deficit at the end of
the simulation was 22.1 mm. This is compared to a measured, maximum deficit of 46.6
mm and a deficit of27.4 mm for the end of the simulation. Overall, the model
corresponds well with the field responses.
Note that the initial value for the model in Figure 5.13 does not start at zero. This
occurred because the model simulated the initial water volume of the cover to be
approximately 5 mm more than what was estimated from the field measurements. A
similar divergence between the measured and computed values occurs for all of the
cover simulations.
I 70.-----------------------------------------------~
~ 60 R2 = 0.71 • Measured Values
~
~ 50 -Computed Values
~ 40~----------~------------------------------------~
~
~ 30~----------~.-----------------------------------~
~ 20~----------~~----------------------------------~
0~ 10+---~~~~~~--------------------------~
.....
~
~
0+---~----------~~~----------------------------~
~ -10+---------------~~~------~~------------------~
z
~ -20+-------------------+4-------4--4-~~--~=-------~
::1:
w -30+-------------------~~--+--+~~~----~--------~
0
>
~ 40+---------------------~~~~------------------~
::s
~-50+-----------~------------~----------~----------~
:E
~ 4-May-00 23-Jun-00 12-Aug-00 1-0ct-00 20-Nov-00
0
Figure 5.13. Total cumulative change in storage per unit area for the D1 cover.

Figure 5.14 shows the comparisons between the computed and measured water volumes
within each layer of the D2 cover system. The D2 cover system behaved similarly to
D1 until the rain event of21.8 mm on September 18, 2000 (corresponds to the line
demarked "WETTING on Figure 5.14). The model computed that 21.4 mm of the
rainfall infiltrated the soil, but the measured data showed that the cover water-volume
increased by approximately 31.8 mm per unit area, 10 mm more than the rain event.
75 wFT DRY WETTING

SHALLOW PEAT j ~ -Computed Values
7.5 em Thick • Measured Values 0.9
60 -Porosity 0.8
0.7
45 0.6
30 ~ .s..~ 1\
0.5
0.4
-E
.,~~
~ ]\ ~ ~~
1\ ..-.
0.3
-
-E
<C
w
15
0
-..;;r~"" r~
0.2
0.1
0 -
CJ
(I)
"'C
1-
0:::
<C z
75 w
!:: DEEP PEAT 1-
z 7.5cm Thick 0.9 z
::J 60 0.8
0
0::: 0
w 0.7 0:::
ll. w
w 45 0.6 1-
:E
::J
..J .... 0.5 ~
30 ...____ 0.4 0
~~
0
>
0:::
w 15
,....._...._
......... .(';;;;,.
- - 0.3
0.2
ii2
1-
w
:E
1- \ ~
7
' 0.1 ::J
~
..J
0 0 0
w >
> 220 w
i= TILL C)
200
~
<C 22cmThick 0.9
..J 180
::J 0.8 w
:E 160
0.7 >
<C
::J 140
0 0.6
120
0.5
100
0.4
80
60
40
- .I...
0.3
0.2
0.1
20
0 0
4-May-00 23-Jun-00 12-Aug-00 1-0ct-00 20-Nov-00
Figure 5.14. Cumulative water volume per unit area in each of the D2 cover layers.
This discrepancy is likely due to runoff and interflow generated from up-slope of the
soil station, flowing into the measurement area. The D2 cover also allows the water to
penetrate deeper than the model simulated, as shown in Figure 5.15 ("DRY" and
"WETTING" profiles). The deeper penetration shown in the field may be due to
macropores (cracks) in the cover acting as conduits for any runoff water. The cracks
were used for water movement only when runoff occurred; water preferring to flow
within the soil matrix at lower water-contents, as shown in experiments conducted by
Horton and Hawkins (1965), and Newman et al. (1997). The ability for the moisture to
infiltrate deep within the cover allows for water to quickly accumulate at its base,
increasing the chance for interflow along the till/shale interface. The "WETTING"
profile in figure 5.15 shows that the base of the till layer saturated much more than the
19-J
18-J
-E
._ 0.2 WET• DRY I
::1: ROFILE PROFILE;
1- I
D.
w ;-+-t-
c I
Dashed Lines - Saturation
0.3 Markers - Measured Values
+
0.4 +----...,.;-----!
0.0 0.3 0.6 0.0 0.3 0.6 0.0 0.3

(2003) and computed volumetric water content profiles for the D2 cover system.
top, indicating that either most of the cracks within the cover terminate near the base, or
that water is flowing into the measurement area from up-slope along the till/shale
interface. There is a good possibility that both of these processes are at work.
Figure 5.16 shows the overall change in storage within the D2 cover. A maximum
deficit of 42 mm was calculated at the end of August. This compares well to the
measured, maximum deficit of 41.5 mm. However, the water deficit at the end of the
simulation was calculated to be 24.4 mm, but measured at only 5 mm. This discrepancy
is mainly due to the factors discussed in the previous paragraph.
e
-E 70
<(
w 60 R2 = 0.91 • Measured Values
0::
<(
50 -Computed Values
1-
z ••
::l 40
0::
w 30
••
Q.
w
C) 20
~ 10
0
1-
en 0
~
w -10
C)
z
<( -20
::1:
()
w -30
>
i= -40
<(
..J
::l -50
::E
::l 4-May-00 23-Jun-00 12-Aug-00 1-0ct-00 20-Nov-00
()
Figure 5.16. Total cumulative change in storage per unit area for the D2 cover.·

within each layer of the D3 cover system. The installed D3 cover differed greatly from
150 w ~T DRY WETTING

03 PEAT I'
-Computed Values
125
15 em Thick
• Measured Values
-Porosity
0.9
0.8
0.7
100
0.6
75 0.5
0.4
~ ,..
-.
E
50
• ~A- ~
--- ~
~
...
0.3
-.
-w
0.2
E 25 d
(I)
-z
0.1
<( "'C
0 0
0::: 1-
<(
550 w
!:: TILL 1-
z 500 1-
55 em Thick 0.9 z
:J 450 0.8
0
0::: 0
w 400
0.7 0:::
Q. 350 w
w 0.6 1-
~
300
:E 0.5
:J 250
..J 0.4 0
0 200
~
>
- ....
150 0.3 1-
0::: w
w 100 0.2
:E
1- :J
0.1
~
50 ..J
0 0 0
w >
> 500 w
i= PEAT/TILL MIX C)
~
<( 450 50 em Thick 0.9
..J
:J 400 0.8 w
:E
:J
350 0.7
~
0 300 0.6
250 0.5
200 0.4
150 0.3
100 0.2
50 0.1
0 0
4-May-00 23-Jun-00 12-Aug-00 1-0ct-00 20-Nov-00
Figure 5.17. Cumulative change in storage per unit area in each of the D3 cover layers.
its design, making it difficult to accurately simulate. Also, a problem with the field
measurements occurred at the start of the season because the till layer at the base of the
cover was still frozen until May 22, 2000. The sensors measuring volumetric water-
content and matric suction during this time did not give accurate readings, measuring
moisture levels to be approximately 5 mm less than were actually present.
The D3 till layers were the main reason for the discrepancy between the measured and
computed values, as shown in Figure 5.18. The till used within the D3 cover had,
overall, higher volumetric-water contents than the generalized till used for the models
(see Appendix A), leading to an under-estimation of the water stored within the till
layer of approximately 30 mm for the entire model season. By adjusting the computed
change in storage up by 30 mm, a much better fit is realized, indicating that the pattern
of water movement is being accurately simulated.
eE
-
<C
w 60
70
R2 = 2.44 • • Measured Values

0::
<C 50
.... -Computed Values
z
:::::» 40
0::
w 30
0..
w 20
C)
~ 10
~
en 0
~
w
C)
-10+-------------------~------~~------~~~----~
z
~ -20
~ -30+-----------------------~----~------------~
~ -40
:::::»-50+-----------~----------~------------------~------------~
::E
G 4-May-00 23-Jun-00 12-Aug-00 1-0ct-00 20-Nov-00
Figure 5.18. Total cumulative change in storage per unit area for the D3 cover.
The simulated vegetation, although assumed to be a "poor" grass, removed soil-water at

a much higher rate from the peat layer than measured. This indicates that, although
there was vegetation, it was very sparse. This sparseness was observed in the area of
the D3 soil station during the 2000 growing season.
Figure 5.19 shows the volumetric water content profiles created at the D3 cover's
highest (WET) and lowest (DRY) levels of saturation, and during a rainfall event late in
the model season (WETTING). The three profiles show similar patterns of water
movement to those seen in the D 1 and D2 profiles. The D3 cover also shows signs of
deep water penetration as was discussed for D2. However, there is no significant
increase in volumetric water content at the base of the D3 cover, indicating that most of
the deep penetrating water came as flow through macropores and was not due to
interflow.
0.2
0.3
0.4
--
E
::1:
0.5
0.6
1- 0.7
D.
w
c 0.8
0.9
1.0 Dashed Lines - Saturation
1.1
1.2
-+-
0.0 0.3 0.6 0.0 0.3 0.6 0.0

(2003) and compu~ed volumetric water content profiles for the D3 cover system.
The maximum deficit calculated for the D3 cover occurred at the end of August and
was 32.3 mm, while the deficit at the end of the simulation was 26.1 mm (Figure 5.19).
However, the measured data showed that the maximum deficit corresponded with the
final day of the simulation, and was only 11.6 mm. The divergences were mainly due
to the inability of the modeling program to simulate sparse vegetation and the
differences between the D3 till and the "generalized" till, as explained in the previous
paragraphs. However, the overall shapes of the two curves are in agreement.
5.2.4.4 BL Cover System

within each layer of the BL cover system. The BL cover exhibits the same kind of
water penetration patterns and evidence of water entering the soil profile from sources
other than rainfall that were seen in the D2 cover. This is shown most clearly during the
storm events on June 19 and September 18, 2000 (Figures 5.21 and 5.22). On June 19,
2000, 27.7 mm of precipitation occurred and the model calculated a net infiltration of
25.6 mm. However, the field data shows that the cover soils had a change in storage of
approximately 41.6 mm (Figure 5.22), almost 14 mm more than the rainfall event. The
second major rain event on September 18, 2000, shows the same heightened amount of
infiltration. The rainfall was 21.8 mm, with the model calculating a net infiltration of
21.4 mm. However, the field data showed an increase in storage of 62 mm, more than
40 mm higher than the rainfall event. The profiles in Figure 5.21 show that, during
these two rain events, the water is distributed throughout the entire cover, not just at the
surface. This indicates more extensive macropore and interflow systems to those within
the D2 cover.
Another reason for the large divergence between the computed and measured values is
the difference between potential evaporation rates at the prototype covers and at the BL
cover, as mentioned in Section 5.2.1. This explains why the calculated amount of
storage decreased at a faster rate than the field measurements, however, a lower
potential evaporation does not explain most of the increase in storage that occurred
100 w'""T DRY WETTING

·~
j
SHALLOW -Computed Values

90 -PEAT/TILL MIX 0.9
• Measured Values
80 ..._ 10 em Thick -Porosity 0.8
70 0.7
60 0.6
50 0.5
40 0.4
-.
E
30
h.~ --- ,..

...........
........ 0.3
-.
E
._
20
10 ~~A 1~ -v\. ...... r\
,l
1\. A
- 0.2
0.1
u
Cl)
<C
w
v '--1 \.J W\._J·~~ "'-..j v v .......
- "'C
._
a:: 0 0 .....
<C z
500 w
!::: INTERMEDIATE .....
z 450 - PEAT/TILL MIX 0.9 z
::::» 400 _ 50 em Thick 0.8
0
a:: 0
w 350 0.7 a::
D.. w
w 300 0.6 .....
:e
::::»
..J
250 0.5 ~
200 0.4 0
0 D2
>
a::
w
.....
150
100
_. - '-~
- fli"'!J~
---- 0.3
0.2
.....
w
:e
50 0.1 ::::»
~
..J
0 0 0
w >
>
;::::
150
DEEP
w
C)
~
<C 135 - PEAT/TILL MIX 0.9
..J 15 em Thick
::::» 120 - 0.8 w
:e 105 0.7
~
::::»
0 90 0.6
75 0.5
60 0.4
....
45
30
- -......... 0.3
0.2
15 0.1
0 0
4-May-00 23-Jun-00 12-Aug-00 1-0ct-00 20-Nov-00
Figure 5.20. Cumulative water volume per unit area in each of the BL cover layers.
The arrows marked "WET" "DRY" and "WETTING" correspond to the volumetric
' '
water content profiles shown in Figure 5 .21.
during the two major rain events. Therefore, the increases during the major storms can
only be accomplished by the addition of water from up-slope of the soil station. This
up-slope water would move down the hill through the soil until it reached an area of
high saturation, where it would either be absorbed by the soil matrix or flow back to the
surface, creating a spring. As more water continued down the slope the zone of highly
saturated conditions would become larger, extending further up the slope. During the
two major rain events the highly saturated zone extended far enough up the slope to
influence the water content of the soil being measured by the soil station. Figure 5.21
provides evidence that this process may be occurring as it shows that the cover was
highly saturated during the major rain events, especially at the base. Observations of
the slope also show evidence of piping erosion, indicating the formation of springs.
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
~
E
._
I
0.4 WET DRY

:r: PROFILE PROFILE
1-
D.
w 0.5
c
0.6 Solid Lines - Computed Values
0.8 +-----r''----f
0.0 0.3 0.6 0.0 0.3 0.6 0.0 0.3

(2003) and computed volumetric water content profiles for the BL cover system.
The maximum deficit calculated for the BL cover occurred at the end of August and
was 41.9 mm, while the deficit at the end of the simulation was 27.1 mm (Figure 5.22).
The measured maximum deficit also occurred at the end of August (39.81 mm), but a
net gain of 6.4 mm was measured by the end of the simulation period. Comparing the
maximum deficits indicates that the residual water content assumed for the model is
accurate. Most of the divergence between the computed and measured values was due
to the two major rain events.
E
-
E
~
70.-----------------------------------------------~
60 • Measured Values
0:::
~ 50 + - - - - - - - . - . . . - - - - - - - - - - - -Computed Values
- 40T------~~------------~~-----------~
i ,, '
w 30T--------~~------------~----------~
0::: '" •
a..
~ 20T----.~----~------------~--------~
._~ 10T---~~~~--~----------------~~~--~
0
0
~
0~--~~~~~~--~~----------------------------~
w
(!)
-10T-----~~r-+---~----~~~~----------~
~ -20T------------~~--~------+--~~~~--------~
::t:
0
w -30+-------------~+-~~~---+--~~----------~
>
~ 40+------------~~~~-------------~
:3
:l -50+-----------~------------~----------~---------~
:::E
:;, 4-May-00 23-Jun-00 12-Aug-00 1-0ct-00 20-Nov-00
0
Figure 5.22. Total cumulative change in storage per unit area for the BL cover.
5.3 Summary and Evaluation of Field Response Modeling
The field response modeling established a set of calibrated soil properties for the four
soil cover systems. The field measurements revealed the need to use multi-modal soil-
water characteristic curves and hydraulic conductivity functions to describe the
properties of the soil layers. The field measurements also revealed that additional soil
layers within the cover systems needed to be defined. The D I and D2 covers required
the division of their peat layers into two separate layers ("deep" and "shallow" peat),
while the peat/till mix comprising the Bill's Lake cover was divided into three layers
("shallow", "intermediate", and "deep" peat/till mix). The field measurements showed
that the D3 cover had the most changes from its design; with the peat differing from that
used on the D 1 and D2 covers and the need for the addition of a layer of peat/till mix.
The model revealed the need for accurately simulating the growth of vegetation on the
covers. The models showed that vegetation was the major factor controlling water
volumes and movement within the soil layers below the surface layer. Divergences
between the measured and modeled results on the D3 cover, likely due to the inability to
accurately define the vegetation on the cover, show that future modeling programs need
to improve the way they simulate plant-water use.
Overall, the field response modeling adequately simulated the measured data patterns.
The largest divergences from the measurements occurred while modeling the D2 and
Bill's Lake covers. These divergences were likely due to the addition of up-slope water
and other two-dimensional effects that could not be accurately simulated with the one-
dimensional Soil Cover program. Therefore, these divergences clearly illustrate when
and where preferential flow develops on the four soil cover systems. Future two-
dimensional modeling is required to increase the accuracy of these simulations and to
better understand the preferential flow system. Other divergences were due to either
vegetation, as described in the previous paragraph, or changes in soil properties between
soil covers. The latter was clearly revealed by the results for the till layers of the
prototype covers. A generalized set of soil properties was created to describe the till
used on all three prototype covers, however, the tills at each site had differing
properties. These differences caused the divergences, shown most dramatically by the
03 till results.
5.4 Sensitivity Analysis
A sensitivity analysis was performed to learn the effects of the vegetation and soil
parameters on the storage behavior of the four cover systems. The vegetation parameter
of leaf area index (LAI) was tested along with the soil properties of hydraulic
conductivity and porosity. The LAI was tested with no, poor and excellent vegetation
present, while the measured limits of the porosity and saturated hydraulic conductivity
(Table 5.1) were used as the test boundaries for the sensitivity analysis. It must be
noted that adjusting the saturated hydraulic conductivity for each layer within the model
also caused the same relative shift to the entire hydraulic conductivity function. Each
parameter was adjusted separately and compared as a percentage of the base-case actual
evapotranspiration(% AET) and infiltration(% Infiltration).
The parameters were first tested on the D 1 cover system to see which had the most
control on water storage, giving the results shown in Table 5.2 and Figures 5.23 and
5.24. The three other covers produced similar findings. The analysis shows that the
main factor controlling actual evapotranspiration and infiltration was the presence, or
lack, of vegetation. The amount of infiltration was also influenced by the hydraulic
conductivity of the peat layer. Changing the other parameters had little or no effect on
the amount of infiltration or actual evapotranspiration. The reason for this is likely due
to the thickness of the covers, the assumed zero-flux lower boundary condition and the
assumption that no runoff was generated. The four test covers have a maximum
thickness of 1.2 m, thinner than the maximum rooting depth of the plants growing on
the site. Since the lower boundary condition was assumed to be impermeable for the
models, no water was allowed to infiltrate out of the covers and into the shale, and all
infiltrating water was stored within the covers. This means that any water stored or
infiltrating the covers is still available to the plants. Finally, it was assumed that no
runoff was generated during the modeling season, dampening the effect the soil
properties had on stored water volumes. For these reasons the vegetation became the
dominant parameter with the other parameters having little influence over water
Table 5.2. Sensitivity analysis results for the D1 cover system.

% Base-case %Base-case
Parameter Layer Variation
AET Infiltration
None 86.5 16.8
LAI N/A Poor 99.6 77.6
Excellent 98.2 181.0
0.48 99.3 106.0
Peat
0.69 100.4 94.4
Porosity
0.44 100.0 99.9
Till
0.64 100.0 100.1
1.3E-2 102.0 71.6
Hydraulic Peat
2.3E-4 94.0 106.7
Conductivity
5.5E-3 100.6 103.1
(cm/s) Till
1.3E-7 99.6 92.1
- LAI
{none, poor, excellent, good)
Peat - Hydraulic Conductivity

{2.3E-4 cm/s, 1.1 E-3 cm/s, 1.3E-2 cm/s)
Ill ,.. Till - Hydraulic Conductivity

{1.3E-7 cm/s, 1.3E-5 cm/s, 5.5E-3 cm/s)
Peat - Porosity
··.c.
{0.48, 0.59, 0.69)
Till - Porosity
{0.44, 0.54, 0.64)
80 85 90 95 100 105 11 0 115 120

PERCENT OF BASE-CASE ACTUAL EVAPOTRANSPIRATION
Figure 5.23. Tornado sensitivity plot for actual evaporation from the D1 cover.
- LAI
(none, poor, good, excellent)
Peat - Hydraulic Conductivity

- - ( 1.3E-2 cm/s, 1.1 E-3 cm/s, 2.3E-4 cm/s)
Till - Hydraulic Conductivity

R---1 HI
(1.3E-7 cm/s, 1.3E-5 cm/s, 5.5E-3 cm/s)
Peat - Porosity
.
(0.69, 0.59, 0.48)
Till - Porosity
(0.44, 0.54, 0.64)
0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200

PERCENT OF BASE-CASE INFILTRATION
Figure 5.24. Tornado sensitivity plot for infiltration into the Dl cover.
movement. Future modeling will need to re-evaluate the assumptions that the shale is
impermeable and that there is no runoff.
Figure 5.25 shows the effect of using multi-modal soil-water characteristic curves and
hydraulic conductivity functions on the change in storage within the Dl cover. To
create Figure 5.25, the calibrated results were compared to those generated using
unimodal soil-water characteristic curves that were fitted to both the in situ soil-water
characteristic and porosity data, and to results generated using unimodal curves that.
were fitted to the in situ soil-water characteristic data alone. The figure illustrates the
need for accurate measurements of porosities of the cover soils. By adding porosity
measurements the modeled results improve significantly, however, the multi-modal
model still produces a slightly better match. The multi-modal model is also much easier
to calibrate because specific parts of the soil-water characteristic curve can be altered,
leaving sections that are known unchanged.
Figure 5.26 shows the dramatic effect vegetation has on the cover water volumes. If the
D 1 cover had no vegetation during the growing season, the cover would have gained
approximately 13 mm of water per unit area. However, due almost entirely to the
vegetation, the cover lost almost 27 mm of water per unit area. This figure alone
substantiates the need for accurate simulation of plant-water use when trying to simulate
soil-cover systems.
-~
<C
w
40.-----------~----------------------------------~
30
-Calibrated Values
~-------:i~,-----
0:: - - · Unimodal Model - lnsitu SWCC and Porosity
<(
~ 20 +------+---~- ·---Unimodal Model - lnsitu SWCC alone
:::» • Measured Values
0:: 10+--~~~~L--T~~--------------------------~
w
a.
w
C)
~0 -10+---~--------~~------~~~~~------~
1-
UJ
~
w
C) -30+---~~r-~~--~~-*-~~~~~~-----~
z<(
~ -40+-----~~+-~~~+-~~~~~_JT-+--~-------~
w
>-50+----------------~~~~~~~----------~~------~
~ ~
::l -60+------------.------------~-----------,------------~
:::E
:::» 4-May-00 23-Jun-00 12-Aug-00 1-0ct-00 20-Nov-00
(.)
Figure 5.25. Effects of changes to the SWCC on the water storage within the Dl cover.
E
-E 40
<C
... .
w
a: 30
't I
f\
I
<C I
I l
... ..
I v '•'" ~
. ..
t-
\.
I
20 I
z::l ;, ' ,,.,

I
I
I
I
' .. . .
*
a: 1\
...
I
10
.
I \
'\ (\ ~·
' .. I
w I
Q.
w
• \I
.. It \
.. I
0 'V
(!) \1
~ -10
_\ -Calibrated Values
-
0
~
t- - - - No Vegetation
en
~
-20 f\1\ [\ , fl..
\}~~
w
(!)
z -30 \ \
<C
::t
(.)
w
-40 ~- VV\j
A
"J
\J
>
i= -50
:5::l -60
::E
::l 4-May-00 23-Jun-00 12-Aug-00 1-0ct-00 20-Nov-00
(.)
Figure 5.26. The effect of vegetation on the water storage within the Dl cover system.
5.5 Summary and Evaluation of Sensitivity Analysis
The sensitivity analysis showed that the model is most sensitive to vegetation. The
hydraulic conductivity, mainly of the surface soil layer, had a significant impact on the
modeled infiltration, but, due to the thickness of the covers, the absence of runoff and
the assumption that the shale was impermeable, it had little impact on the overall
amount of stored water. Future modeling will need to re-evaluate the assumptions that
the shale is impermeable and that there is no runoff.
Chapter 6
PREDICTIVE MODELING
The calibrated model inputs from the field response modeling were used to predict the
field measurements taken during 2001, to provide confidence that it can be used as a
guide for prediction and design, and to develop a preliminary cover design for use at the
Syncrude mine site. The following chapter describes this work.
6.1 Application of Models to 2001 Data
6.1.1 Details of2001 Models
The sensitivity analysis, discussed at the end of Chapter 5, showed that the parameters
of vegetation and hydraulic conductivity are the most critical when simulating water
movement within the soil cover systems. Based on this, reasonable simulations of the
water movement within the four soil cover systems during 2001 should be achieved
simply by adding the 2001 climate and vegetation data to the calibrated soil properties
generated during the field response modeling, and by adjusting the saturated hydraulic
conductivity to match the field measurements taken by Meiers (2002) during that year.
Page 78
Chapter 6: Predictive Modeling Page 79
The following paragraphs give the changes made to the field response models to
calibrate them to the 2001 data. All other details regarding the model inputs are the
same as those reported in Section 5.1.
6.1.1.1 Simulation Period and Initial Conditions

The simulation period selected for the 2001 models ran for 157 days starting on May
19, 2001 and ending on October 22, 2001. This is the same time period used for the
field response modeling. The initial soil temperature and suction profiles were
generated from the measurements taken within the covers at the four soil stations on
midnight of May 18, 2001.
6.1.1.2 Vegetation
The predominant vegetation on the three prototype covers changed from green foxtail to
white and yellow sweetclover in 2001. The following paragraphs give a description of
these species. After the description, a summary of the assumptions made to simulate
the vegetation grown on the four cover systems is presented.
The predominant types of vegetation on the three prototype covers during 2001 were
white (Melilotus alba) and yellow (M. officinalis) sweetclover. These species are very
similar, with the main distinguishing feature being the color of the flower petals. The
sweetclovers are monocarpic, annual or biennial herbs of the legume family
(Leguminosae) that can grow to 3 m high (Eckardt, 1987), with a tap root that may
exceed 120 em in depth (Uchytil, 1992). Unlike some biennials which respond to high
densities by delaying reproduction, both species are "obligate" biennials and must
flower and die during the second year of growth (Klemow and Raynal, 1981 ).
However, continuous day-lengths of 17 hours have been shown to induce flowering in
the first growing season.
Native to the Mediterranean, sweetclovers were reported in North America as early as

1664 (Eckardt, 1987) and have been extensively used as forage crops, soil builders and
stabilizers, and as a nectar source for honey bees (Tukington et al., 1978; Harman,
1992; and Sullivan, 1992). The sweetclovers have spread from cultivation and thrive in
waste places and roadsides throughout the United States and Canada (Eckardt, 1987).
Each sweetclover plant can produce between 14,000 and 350,000 seeds (Uchytil, 1992).
Newly mature seeds will be soft, but as they dehydrate they become temporarily "hard"
or impermeable (Eckardt, 1987), and can remain viable in this state for 11-50 years
(USGS, 2002). The seeds float, making runoff and stream flow the most likely means
of seed dispersal, although wind can blow seeds up to several meters (Turkington et al.,
1978). Seeds remain dormant until the skin is scarified and becomes permeable.
Natural scarification occurs due to freeze/thaw cycles, animal digestion, or by heat from
a fire (Heidinger, 1975). Given sufficient moisture, most germination and seedling
development occurs from late March through April, although some seedlings continue
to emerge until fall (Klemow and Raynal, 1981 ). Germination is enhanced by day
temperatures less than 15°C. Emergence usually occurs 7 to 14 days after germination.
Nearly all energy in the early part of the first growing season is put into top-growth.
Around September, however, the critical growth phase occurs when the plant allocates
most of its energy to root growth. First-year shoots are killed by freezing temperatures.
In the spring of the second year, several shoots arise from the buds and elongate rapidly.
Following elongation, sweetclovers flower and set seed. Flowering has been reported to
occur from May until October (Uchytil, 1992) with earlier blooming during hot, dry
years (Wheeler and Hill, 1957).
Sweetclovers are adapted to a wide range of climatic conditions. They are drought
tolerant and winter hardy, but cannot withstand prolonged flooding (Eckardt, 1987).
Sweetclovers will grow in a wide variety of soil types and are tolerant of saline and
alkaline soils (Smith and Graber, 1948; Eichhorn and Watts, 1984; and Welsh et al.,
1987). They are commonly found on calcareous soils and grow best on rich loams and
clay loams with pH levels of 6.5 or higher (Turkington et al., 1978; and Martin and
Leonard, 1949). Sweetclovers grow well in direct sunlight and partial shade, but cannot
tolerate dense shade (USGS, 2002).
For the D1 and D3 prototype covers it was assumed that the sweetclovers growing
around the soil stations were in their first year of growth. This assumption was made
because the measured data indicated a large amount of water loss from the soil at the
same time that the critical growth phase would occur for sweetclover plants during the
first year. The sweetclovers were assumed to germinate after 7 days with an average air
temperature of 10°C, and emerge 14 days later. This emergence date was assumed to be
the start of the growing season. The end of the growing season was set as the first day
of freezing temperatures after the start of the season. Using these assumptions, the
growing season for D1 and D3 was assumed to run from May 12 until October 18,
2001. Because the assumed growing season began before the simulation period the start
of the growing season was set as May 19, 2001 for the models; the same day as the start
of the simulation period. The rooting depth from the start of the growing season until
September 1, 2001, was set at 5 em, to simulate the period of time when the
sweetclovers put most of their energy into developing top-growth. The rooting zone
was set as the entire depth of the soil covers from September 1, 2001 until the end of the
growing season. This was done to simulate the critical growth phase of the
sweetclovers, when root development takes precedence over top-growth. From
observations, D 1 and D3 were estimated to have "poor" grass with a maximum leaf area
index (LAI) of one.
The D2 prototype cover was assumed to have the same growth of sweetclovers late in
the season as was simulated for the D 1 and D3 covers, however, the measured data also
showed evidence of green foxtail water use at the start of the season. Therefore, the
assumptions described in Section 5 .1.4 were used to simulate the growth of green
foxtail at the start of the growing season. Using those assumptions, the growing season
for the green foxtail was began on June 7, 2001. The green foxtail was allowed to grow
until July 25, 2001, at which point it was assumed that the sweetclovers became
dominant. After July 25, 2001, the vegetation on the D2 cover was assumed to behave
the same as that on the D 1 and D3 covers, as explained in the previous paragraph.
From observations, D2 was estimated to have "poor" grass with a maximum LAI of
one.
The predominant vegetation on the Bill's Lake cover system during 2001 was smooth
brome (Bromus inermis), as it was during the 2000 growing season. Therefore, the
same assumptions described in Section 5.1.4 were used to simulate the 2001 growing
season. Using those assumptions, the growing season for Bill's Lake was ran from
April 26 until October 16, 2001. Since the growing season began prior to the start of
the simulation period it was assumed that the grass was already rooted to a depth of 24
em. From observations, Bill's Lake was assumed to have "good" grass with a
maximum LAI of two.
6.1.1.3 Soil Properties

Except for a slight adjustment to the hydraulic conductivity functions, the soil
properties were the same as those used for the field response modeling. The following
paragraph describes the adjustment made to the hydraulic conductivity functions to
better simulate the 2001 data.
The sensitivity analysis (Section 5.4) showed that the field response models were
sensitive to changes in hydraulic conductivity. Meiers (2002) showed there was a
significant change in the saturated hydraulic conductivity between the two years.
Because of these facts the hydraulic conductivity functions used for the field response
models were adjusted to match the 2001 measurements. Figure 6.1 shows the
difference between the 2000 and 2001 hydraulic conductivity functions for the shallow
peat. The only adjustment to the hydraulic conductivity function was an increase in the
saturated hydraulic conductivity and the hydraulic conductivities at low suctions. The
measured results showed that there was no significant change to the measured
unsaturated hydraulic ·conductivity function during the two years. It is assumed that the
saturated hydraulic conductivity changes independently to the unsaturated hydraulic

conductivity function because the increase in saturated hydraulic conductivity is due to
freeze/thaw and wet/dry cycles during the year that create increased macroporosity.
However, the increased macroporosity does not effect the water conduction potential of
the soil matrix during unsaturated conditions. Therefore, except for highly saturated
conditions, the hydraulic conductivity for the two years remains unchanged. This
assumption will need to be re-evaluated during future modeling.
1.0E+OO
2
2000 R = 2.47
- · Hydraulic Conductivity Function for the
Shallow Peat - 2000
1.0E-01 1-
-Hydraulic Conductivty Function for the
2001 R2 = 2.62 Shallow Peat- 2001
-S
u; 1.0E-02
~
.,,,_,"Guelph Permeameter - Saturated Hydraulic
-
~
1.0E-03
1.0E-04
........ ........~
~ •
Conductivity Range (2001)
Instantaneous Profile Method Results- D1
Prototype Cover: 11 em Depth -(2000)
> f'~6 • Instantaneous Profile Method Results - D2

j:: 1.0E-05 Prototype Cover: 7.5 em Depth (2000)
(.) ~ ~d~ •
::l 1.0E-06 0 Instantaneous Profile Method Results- D1
c ~~
~~
0
Prototype Cover: 11 em Depth (2001}
z ~ &
0 1.0E-07 "
u 6 Instantaneous Profile Method Results- D2
~ ~ ...
~
(.) Prototype Cover: 7.5 em Depth (2001}
(.) 1.0E-08
:::::i
::l 1.0E-09 ~~
~
c 1.0E-10
" .
~A fll
""
>
~ •
1.0E-11
1.0E-12
1.0E-13 ~
1.0E-02 1.0E-01 1.0E+OO 1.0E+01 1.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+04 1.0E+05
SUCTION (kPa)
Figure 6.1. Comparison of the 2000 and 2001 hydraulic conductivity functions and
field measurements for the shallow peat layers.
Figure 6.2 shows the calibrated hydraulic conductivity functions used for the 2001
simulations. Appendix A contains the graphs used to compare the measurements
calculated using the instantaneous profile method and the calibrated hydraulic
conductivity functions
a) 1.0E+OO -.---------,..------r-------,--------,
Shallow Peat
U) 1.0E-02 + - - - - - - + - - - - - - - - - 1 - - - - - 1
....... - ·Deep Peat
E
u --
-
;: 1.0E-04 +---==~-~~-P"cc~.,.------!----1
·s:
~:::J 1.0E-06 -t-----~b-----...:~ -Till
D3 Peat
"C
1:
8 1.0E-08 -t-------+-----~·~··c-=-1-------+--------t
-~
:::J 1.0E-1 0
f!
"C
...
>a
:I: 1.0E-12
1.0E-14
0 1 100 10000 1000000
Suction (kPa)
b) 1.0E+OO
-E
~ 1.0E-02
_,..............,Shallow Peat!Til Mix
-·-s:
(,)
>a 1.0E-04
- - · Intermediate Peat!Till Mix
;; -Deep Peat!Till Mix

(,)
:::J
1.0E-06
"C
1:
0 1.0E-08
0
-~
:::J 1.0E-1 0
f!
"C
>a
:I: 1.0E-12
1.0E-14
0 1 100 10000 1000000
Suction (kPa)
Figure 6.2. 2001 hydraulic conductivity functions for the a) peat and till
b) peat/till mix.
6.1.2 2001 Model Results
The 2001 models behaved similar to the field response modeling discussed in the
previous chapter. Therefore, only the changes in water storage per unit area will be
compared and analyzed in this section.

Figure 6.3 shows the total change in storage for the D1 cover during the 2001 model
period. The computed and measured results have similar patterns. The measured and
computed results were also compared to the results generated when running the model
with green foxtail instead of sweetclover as the predominant vegetation, and running the
model with no vegetation influences. These comparisons show how critical it is, not
only to simulate vegetation, but also to simulate the correct vegetation.
E
E 50~==============~~------------------~~~
:;;( Computed R2 = 5.91 • Measured Values
40
~ Green Foxtail R2 = 27. 5 -Computed Values
~ 30 No Vegetation R2 = 0.55 .___ _ _ _ _ _ ······Green Foxtail
z 20 ~------------------~~------------~=-_N_o__V_eg_e_ta_t_io_n__~
::l
ffi 10T-~~------~~------~~--~~------------------~
0..
w
(!)
~
0
l-
en
'
,•
~ -30+-------------~------~--------------~r---~----~
~ 40+-------------~~----~~-·~-~----.~\·~··------------------~
<( ·......... ;· ..
G -50+-----------------~~-.~.----~+-----~~~----~~--~
w
> -60+-------------------------------------------------~
i=
5::l -70+-----~------~------~----~------~------~----~
:E 14-May- 8-Jun-01 3-Jul-01 28-Jul-01 22-Aug-01 16-Sep-01 11-0ct-01 5-Nov-01

::l 01
(.)
Figure 6.3. Total cumulative change in storage per unit area for the D 1 cover during the
2001 model period.
Figure 6.4 shows the comparisons between the computed and measured cumulative
water volumes within each layer of the D 1 cover system during the 2001 model period.
100.---------------------------------------------------r
SHALLOW PEAT -Computed Values
90 10 em Thick ---------- • Measured Values 0.9
80 + - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Porosity 0.8
70 - + - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + 0.7
60 0.6
~ 0~
40 0.4
30 0.3
20 +--------------------~.......- - - - + 0.2 -
,(.)
<C
w
0:::
<C
10 + - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + 0.1
0+-----~------~------~----~------~----~------~0
110
-
~
z
w
Cl)
t: 100 -
DEEP PEAT ~
z
z 11 em Thick 0.9
:::;) 90 0.8
0
0::: 0
80
w 0.7 ~
c. 70 w
0.6 ~
w
~
60
::E 0.5
:::;) 50
...1 0.4 0
g 40
....... --....... i:2
~
w
~
30
20
- ~
-.-......
- ~
-
0.3
0.2
0.1
~
w
::E
:::;)
~
10 ...1
w
0 0
~
> 270.-------------------------------------------------~ w
C)
t= TILL
~
<C 240 f- 27 em Thick - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - = r 0.9
...1
:::;) 210 + - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 0.8 w
:E
:::;) 180 + - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 0.7 ~
0 0.6
150~----------------------------------------------~
0.5
120+----------------------------1
0.4
90+-----------------------------1
0.3
60t~ ....................................lllliiii.--l 0.2
30 0.1
0 0
14-May-01 8-Jun-01 3-Jul-01 28-Jul-01 22-Aug-01 16-Sep-01 11-0ct-01 5-Nov-01
Figure 6.4. Cumulative water volume per unit area in each of the D 1 cover layers
during the 2001 model period.
The measurements taken within the deep peat showed that this layer was drier and more
dynamic than the simulation indicated. Also, the till layer was slightly wetter than the
model simulated. These discrepancies are likely due to the use of a set of generalized
soil properties for similar soil layers on the four cover systems, as was discussed in
Chapter 5.

Figure 6.5 shows the comparisons between the computed and measured cumulative
water volume within each layer of the D2 cover system during the 2001 model period.
The figure also shows the results for each layer when the model was ran with; green
foxtail for the entire growing season; sweetclover for the entire growing season and; no
vegetation growing on the cover. The figure shows that vegetation has the largest
impact on the soil layers below the surface layer. The figure also shows how each of
the vegetative species impacts the water volume within the cover system. This is shown
more clearly in Figure 6.6, where the total change in storage for the D1 cover during the
2001 model period is presented. The figure shows that the green foxtail controls water
use at the start of the simulation period but that, if green foxtail was used for the entire
season, the cover would have been drier than the measurements indicated. Running the
model with sweetclover as the only vegetative influence produces the opposite effect,
with the model simulating the proper amount of drying late in the season but missing
the water use at the start of the season entirely. Therfore, a more similar pattern was
realized when running the model with green foxtail growth at the start of the season and
sweetclover growth at its end, as was explained in Section 6.1.1.2.
It is interesting to note that there is no evidence during the 2001 model year, as there
was during 2000, of a divergence between the measured and computed results due to
the addition of water from up-slope of the measuring site on the D2 cover. This may be
due to the fact that there were no rainfall events large enough to create runoff and,
therefore, two-dimensional effects were minimal. This will need to be evaluated in
future modeling.
75
SHALLOW PEAT -computed Values
7.5 em Thick • Measured Values 0.9
60 Sweetclover for Entire Growing Season 0.8
------Green Foxtail for Entire Growing Season 0.7
45
1--------------------------t -Porosity
0.6
0.5
30 1 1 c - - - - - - - a : : : - - - - - . , ; r - - - - - - - - 1 i - - - - - - - - - w . r - - - - - - - - - - - - t 0.4
0.3
15
<(
w 0 +-----------------------------------------------------*0
0:::
<(
75
!::: DEEP PEAT
z 7.5cmThick 0.9
:J 60 - r - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + 0.8
0:::
w 0.7
Q.
w 45
:E
:J
..J
g 30 ; - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + - 0.4
0:::
w
....
~ 0+-------~--------------------------------------------~o
w
> 220 1
~
TILL
200 22 em Thick 0.9
180 0.8
:J
:E 160
0.7
::l 140
0 0.6
120
0.5
100
0.4
80
0.3
60
40 - 0.2
20 0.1
0 0
Figure 6.5. Cumulative water volume per unit area in each of the D2 cover layers
E
-E
<(
w
50
40 Computed R 2 = 0.98 • Measured Values
0::
<(
Green Foxtail R2 = 1.12 -Computed Values
30
1- No Vegetation R2 = 2.19 Sweetclover for Entire Growing Season
z
:J
20 Sweetclovers R2 = 0.99 ······Green Foxtail for Entire Growing Season
0:: - N o Vegetation
w 10
c.
w 0
C)
~ -10
0
1- -20
tJ)
~ -30
w
~ 40T---------~r-~~-;~~--~-T--~~----~~~~-----~
~ -50+-------------~~~~--~~----~=-~~~----~
0
~ -60T---------------------------------------------------~
~ -70+-----------~----------~---------------~----------~----------~---------------~-----~
~ 14-May- 8-Jun-01 3-Jul-01 28-Jul-01 22-Aug-01 16-Sep-01 11-0ct-01 5-Nov-01
:J 01
0
Figure 6.6. Total cumulative change in storage per unit area for the D2 cover during the
2001 model period.

Figure 6. 7 shows the comparisons between the computed and measured cumulative
water volume within each layer of the D3 cover system during the 2001 model period.
The figure shows the same types of divergences that were shown for the D 1 cover
system (Section 6.1.2.1 ).
Figure 6.8 shows the total change in storage within the D3 cover during the 2001 model
period. Here again, a much better pattern match is realized using sweetclover as the
dominant vegetation instead of green foxtail or having no vegetation on the cover. The
difference between the measured and computed results at the start of the simulation
period is likely due to the soil cover still being frozen at the start of the season, as was
the case during the field response modeling.
150
03 PEAT
135 15 em Thick -computed Values 0.9
120 •Measured Values
-Porosity 0.8
105 0.7
90 0.6
75 0.5
60 0.4
45
-
0.3
30 0.2
( .)
<C
w
0:::
<C
15
550
0
0.1
0 -CD
"'C
1-
z
w
!::: TILL 1-
z 500 55 em Thick 0.9 z
::J 450 0
0.8 0
0::: 400
w 0.7 0:::
D.. 350 w
w 0.6 1-
~
300
:i 0.5
::J 250
..J 0.4 0
g 200
D2
150 - 0.3 1-
0:::
w
1-
100 - 0.2
0.1
w
:2
::J
~
50 ..J
0 0 0
w >
> 500 w
~
PEATITILL MIX (!)
450
~
50 em Thick - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + 0.9
..J
::J 400 + - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + 0 . 8 w
:i
::J
350 T - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + 0 . 7
~
0 300 + - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + 0 . 6
250 + - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + 0 . 5
200 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 0.4
150
t---::::=~~~-------iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii;;;;;;~~~~----t 0.3
100 ~~~~~~~--!!!!!!!1!!!!!!!---~-;;;;:.-+ 0.2
50 + - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + 0.1
0+-----~~----~------~------~----~------~------+0
Figure 6. 7. Cumulative water volume per unit area in each of the D3 cover layers
eE
-w
<(
50
40
•
• Measured Values
-Computed Values
0:::
<( 30 -t--'\------r<;-------1~---~~.------ft-Ptt--- ······Green Foxtail
1- - N o Vegetation
z
:l
20
0:::
w 10
Q.
w 0
(!)
~ -10 .·.·,•
0 '•'.
1-
en -20
~ -30
w
~ -40 Computed R2 = 0.84
Green Foxtail R2 = 7.57
~ -50
0 No Vegetation R2 = 0.98
~ -60
~ -70~----------~-------~---------------~----------~----------~-----------·~··----------~
i 14-May- 8-Jun-01 3-Jul-01 28-Jul-01 22-Aug-01 16-Sep-01 11-0ct-01 5-Nov-01
:l 01
0
Figure 6.8. Total cumulative change in storage per unit area for the D3 cover during the
2001 model period.
6.1.2.4 BL Cover System

Figure 6.9 shows the total change in storage within the BL cover during the 2001 model
period. The measured and computed value patterns match fairly well until July 28,
2001. At this time the first rain major event occurred when 22.6 nun of rain fell. This
rain event caused a measured increase of water volume within the cover of 53.2 mm per
unit area, over 3 em more water than the actual rainfall. A similar divergence was
created by the rain event on August 19 when 18.5 mm of rain fell causing a 78.5 mm
increase in the water volume of the cover. These responses are similar to those shown
during the field response modeling (Section 5.2.4.4). They provide more evidence that
most of the divergence between the computed and measured results is due to the
addition of water from up-slope of the soil station.
Figure 6.10 shows the comparisons between the computed and measured water volume
within each layer of the BL cover system during the 2001 model period. It is interesting
to note that the intermediate peat/till layer is fairly dynamic, considering it represents a
thick layer of soil. This is likely due to a combination of the plant water use and the
deep peat/till layer being highly saturated during most of the simulation period, causing
the creation of a saturated zone in the intermediate peat/till layer during major rain
events, as was discussed in Section 5.2.4.4.
eE
-
c(
w
50
40
•
• Measured Values
0::
c(
•
30 +-----=========~------~~·---Computed Values
1-
z
;::)
20
0:: 10
w
Q.
w 0
C)
~ -10
0
1-
tn -20
~ -30
w
C)
z -40
c(
:z:: -50
0
w -60
>
i=
:5
;::)
-70
14-May- 8-Jun-01 3-Jul-01 28-Jul-01 22-Aug-01 16-Sep-01 11-0ct-01 5-Nov-01
::i
;::) 01
0
Figure 6.9. Total cumulative change in storage per unit area for the BL cover during the
2001 model period.
100
SHALLOW -computed Values
90 0.9
PEAT/TILL MIX • Measured Values
80 10 em Thick -Porosity 0.8
70 0.7
60 0.6
50 0.5
40 0.4
..-... 30 0.3
E 20 0.2 ..-...
E
._..
<(
w
10 0.1 ,(.)
G)
._..
0 0
~ t-
<( z
500 w
~ INTERMEDIATE t-
z 450 - PEAT/TILL MIX 0.9 z
::J _ 50 em Thick 0
~
400 0.8 u
w 350 0.7 ~
D. w
w 300 0.6 t-
:E
::J
250 0.5 ~
..J 200 0.4 u
0 ..,_,__ D2
>
~
150
- ............. - ~~
0.3 t-
w
w
t-
100
50
-~
- 0.2
0.1
:E
::J
~
..J
0 0 0
w >
> 150 w
i= DEEP C)
~
<( 135 PEAT/TILL MIX 0.9
..J 15 em Thick
::J 120 0.8 w
:E
::J
105 0.7
~
u 90 0.6
75 0.5
60 0.4
45 0.3
30 - 0.2
15 0.1
0 0
Figure 6.1 0. Cumulative water volume per unit area in each of the BL cover layers
6.2 Summary and Evaluation of 2001 Model Results
The 2001 model results give more evidence that the development of vegetation is the
key parameter when trying to simulate water movement within a soil cover system. The
results also show that simulating the correct species of vegetation is critical. Having
said this, it is crucial for future modeling programs to continue to develop ways of
accurately simulating plant-water use.
The BL cover system showed further evidence of two-dimensional water movement

during 2001; shown by the large divergences between the measured and computed
results during major rain events. It is theorized that these divergences were created by
the extension of a zone of saturation within the cover from the toe of the slope up to the
soil station measuring location. Major rain events create saturated conditions at the toe
of the slope, and as more water is added, from infiltrating rainfall and runoff or water
running along the cover/shale interface, the saturated zone would become larger until it
encroached on the measuring site. The measurement of no two-dimensional effects on
the D2 cover during 2001 is also important, as there was no runoff measured within the
weir channel during that simulation period. During 2000, there had been, rains large
enough to create runoff measurements and, consequently, divergences between the
measured and computed model results occurred. Future measurements and modeling
will need to focus on two-dimensional water movement in more detail.
The 2001 model results provided confidence that the field response model inputs can be
used to develop a preliminary cover design for use at the Syncrude mine site. Section
6.3 provides details of this work.
6.3 Predictive Modeling
The ability to predict how well a cover system will perform during extreme and mean
climate conditions is of utmost importance when deciding on a cover design. To
develop a preliminary cover design to use at the Syncrude mine site, five designs were
tested by modeling the effects of extreme and mean climate conditions. The main
objective is to ascertain whether a thinner cover system than the currently recommended
cover thickness of 1 m could be effective at the mine. The following sections provide
details of the predictive modeling scenarios and results. The results are summarized
and evaluated in Section 6.4.
6.3.1 Predictive Modeling Scenarios
Simulations were run from April 15 until October 31. Freezing conditions were not
modeled, however, runoff was simulated. Five vegetated cover designs were tested
during an extreme wet, an extreme dry and an average year using the inputs developed
during the field response modeling (Chapter 5). The mean year weather inputs were
used first on each cover with an assumed suction profile of 25 kPa at the start of the
simulation period. The suction profiles created at the end of the simulation period were
then entered as the initial profiles and the models were run again with the mean weather
inputs. This process was continued until the initial and final suction profiles converged.
The suction profiles created from these model runs were then used as the initial
conditions for the extreme and mean years. The following sections give more details on
the cover designs, vegetation and climate conditions.
6.3 .1.1 Cover Designs

Figure 6.11 shows the layering for the five cover designs used for the predictive
modeling scenarios. The base case is the 30-70 cover, with 30 em of peat overlying 70
em of till. The peat layer for all the designs is further subdivided into shallow and deep
peat, with the shallow peat constituting the top 10cm of the cover. This change in the
properties of the peat layer at approximately 10 em depth has been observed previously
by Silins and Rothwell (1998) and Weiss et al. (1998). The 15-70, 30-35 and 15-35
covers were created by decreasing the base-case thickness of the deep peat layer, the till
layer, and both the deep peat and till layers, respectively. The 0-100 cover tests the
effectiveness of a single till layer of the currently accepted thickness of 1 m.
30-70 15-70 30-35 15-35 0-100

0 0 0 0 0
10 10 10 10
15 15
30 30
DEPTH 50
(em)
65
85
100 100
LEGEND
SHALLOW PEAT TILL
• ~.... i ,\. : ...
DEEP PEAT . '. ' . . SHALE
NOT TO SCALE
Figure 6.11. Five cover designs used for the predictive modeling scenarios.
6.3 .1.2 Vegetation

Each cover was assumed to grow a crop of green foxtail. The foxtail was assumed to be
a "good" grass, with a maximum leaf area index (LAI) of two. The seeds were assumed
to germinate after 7 days with an average air temperature of 15°C, and emerge 17 days
after germination. This emergence date was assumed to be the start of the growing
season. The roots were started at a depth of 1 em and extended by 1 em per day from
the germination date until they reached the shale or the end of the growing season
occurred. The end of the growing season was set as the first day of freezing
temperatures after the start of the season.
6.3 .1.3 Extreme and Mean Climate Conditions

The extreme wet, extreme dry and mean years were determined from climate data
collected at the Fort McMurray Airport from 1959 until1993, the largest continuous
data set available for the area. These years were determined on the basis of the smallest,
largest and average differences between the amount of potential evaporation and
precipitation, respectively, which occurred from May 1 until October 31. The potential
evaporation was determined using the Penman (1948) method described by Gray et al.
(1973). Figure 6.12 shows that, using the methods described above, 1971, 1972, and
1973 represent the extreme dry, mean and extreme wet years, respectively. The
extreme wet and mean years were assu~ed to have the maximum and mean amounts of
precipitation, respectively, occurring from November 1 until April30, stored as snow at
the surface of the cover at the start of the model period. This snow was distributed as
melt water at a rate of 7 mm per day. It was assumed that evaporation does not reduce
the amount of snow pack. There was assumed to be no snow accumulation on the
covers during the dry year.
The average air temperature, relative humidity, and wind speed were measured daily at
the Fort McMurray Airport, and net radiation was calculated hourly. The maximum
and minimum air temperature was assumed to vary by 5 degrees from the average
temperature, while the maximum and minimum relative humidity was assumed to vary
by 20 percent from the average relative humidity. These variations from the average
were calculated using the data gathered from the weather station on the prototype cover.
700
650
600
550
500
-450
~ 400
-
0:: 350
w
1-
300
~ 250
200
150
100
50
0
Figure 6.12. Cumulative potential evaporation and precipitation data, for the months of
May through October, collected at the Fort McMurray Airport from 1959 until1993.
6.3 .2 Predictive Modeling Results
The models were evaluated using three performance criteria to determine whether a
thinner cover system than the currently recommended cover thickness of 1 m could be
effective at the mine. These criteria are that the soil cover system must:
1. Provide enough water for plant development during the growing season.
2. Minimize the amount of water coming into contact with the shale interface.
3. Minimize the amount of runoff.
The following sections contain an analysis of the performances of the five design covers
with regards to these criteria.
6.3.2.1 Saturation Responses

Figure 6.13 through to Figure 6.17 show the changes in the level of saturation for the
five design covers during the three model seasons. The line demarked as the
"permanent wilting point" represents the lowest saturation level able to sustain
vegetation, and was established by calculating the saturation level that would occur if
each of the covers had a suction profile of 1500 kPa. It is assumed that a cover fails to
provide enough water for plant development (Criterion 1) if its saturation level drops to
the permanent wilting point. Using this assumption, both the 15-35 and 30-35 design
covers fail to meet the first criterion during the extreme dry year. The 30-35 cover also
fails during the average year, with the 15-35 cover coming close to failure.
100
--
'ife
IX:
90
-AVERAGE YEAR
-DRY YEAR
w WET YEAR
>
0
80 • • INITIAL SATURATION LEVEL
0
- PERMANENT WILTING POINT
...1 70
0
en
w 60
:I:
t-
LL
0 50
...1
w
>
w
40
...1
z 30
0
t=
~ 20
:::»
t-
<( 10
en
0
9-Apr 4-May 29-May 23-Jun 18-Jul 12-Aug 6-Sep 1-0ct 26-0ct 20-Nov
Figure 6.13. Changes in the saturation level ofthe 30-70 cover.
100.-----------------------~------------------------,
-AVERAGE YEAR
~ 90 -t-------------1 -DRY YEAR
~
w WETYEAR
~ 80 +--------------1 - - INITIAL SATURATION LEVEL
0
~ 70~-+,~r---------~--~--~------------------------~
0
tn
w 6o~~--------~~~~--~+-+---------------~~~
:I:
1-
~ so~-~-----------~~~~---~~~·~~~-r~~--~
~
~ 40~------------~~-------~~~~--------~
w
~
z 30~-------------------------~~~~~~----~
0
i=
~
;::)
-----------------
20T---------------------------------------~
1-
~
U)
10T------------------------------------~
0~----,---~----~----~----~----~--~----~--~
Figure 6.14. Changes in the saturation level of the 15-70 cover.
100.---------------------~--------------------------~
-AVERAGE YEAR
~ 90 ~----------------------l -DRY YEAR
~ WET YEAR
w
>
0
80 T-----------------------1 - - INITIAL SATURATION LEVEL
(.)
5 70
tn
w 6o~~---=~~--~---r-----------------------~
:I:
1-
~ 50T7----------~~~~~--~+---------------~--~
~
~ 40~------~~-=~~~~~~~--~~----~~~~--~
w
~
z
0
30T----------------~~~~~-----r------~
i=
~ 20+-----------------------------------------~
;::)
1-
~ 10~----------------------------------------~
tn
OT-----,---~----~----~----~----~--~----~--~
100.-------------------------~----------------------~
-AVERAGE YEAR
--
cf.
0:::
90 --r--~-'---------~~,_-----,.-C-------1 --DRY YEAR
w 80 -t-----t-;:1\:------~---.,---.........J
~
(.) - - INITIAL SATURATION LEVEL
~ 70-t--~--~~------~~~--~----------------------~
0
~ 60Tf------------~+---~~--~~~----------------~--~
:I:
1-
~ 50-t--~------------~~~--~----~~---~~~+---~
0
~
w 40-t----------~=-~~----~r-~~----~~p~~------~
>
w
~
z 30--r-------------------~~~--~----~J-~~~----~
0
i=
~ 20
:J
~ 10T----------------------------------------------~
U)
OT-----r---~----~----~----~--~----~-----r--~
Figure 6.16. Changes in the saturation level of the 15-35 cover.
100
-
~ 90
0:::
-AVERAGE YEAR
-DRY YEAR
w WET YEAR
> 80
0 - - INITIAL SATURATION LEVEL
(.)
~ 70
0
U)
w 60
:I:
1-
~
0 50
~
w
> 40
w
~
z 30
0
i=
~ 20
-----------------
:J
1-
<(
U)
10
0+-----r---~----~----~----~--~~--~-----r--~
6.3.2.2 Matric Suction Responses

Figures 6.18 through to Figure 6.22 show the initial matric suction profiles for each
design cover system. As explained in Section 6.3.1, the initial matric suction profiles
were created by repeatedly running the models with the average year inputs until the
initial and final suction profiles converged. The lines demarked as the "wettest" and
"driest" conditions represent the lowest and highest, respectively, matric suction values
calculated at each reported depth within the cover system during all three model years.
A line representing the generally accepted moisture wilting point for plants (1500 kPa)
is also drawn on each of the figures.
0.00
. I ~
0.10 +---------;Y'~_,/=----1~- - INITIAL PROFILE ~-~,111""'"!~=--------i
r -WETIEST CONDITIONS II
0.20 + - - - - - - - + - -I - - - - 1 --DRIEST CONDITIONS ~~! ------1
_)
0.30
I
... ...
I\
!"'---
...
'E
-
:X:
1-
o.4o
0.50
~· \.
I I
PLANT
STRESS
~
D..
w
c 0.60 ,__
I
' ). l
0.70
\ .
I
' /;
0.80
j
,
,
I
II L
f
WILTING
POINT
I-
0.90 l ,
,, 1
~
SATURATED I
I
1.00+-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
1.0E-03 1.0E-02 1.0E-01 1.0E+OO 1.0E+01 1.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+04 1.0E+05

SUCTION (kPa)
Figure 6.18. Matric suction profiles within the 30-70 cover.
0.00
0.05
,/, #
~
0.10 --·""""""'':· # I~
~\
'"
;
0.15 -. • - INITIAL PROFILE
0.20 I
#
_,WETTEST CONDITIONS If!
0.25
... . . .. .. -DRIEST CONDITIONS
0.30 . - ... PLANT

e o.35 ........... " STRESS I
i" 0.40 \
' t
t: 0.45 \ ' I
~ /.
I
~ 0.50 . I
0.55 1 I /
0.60
0.65
'
SATURATED I
,
I
I
I
/ I
I
~
WILTING f-
0.70 , I . POINT
0.75 ., ; I
0.80 ~
... ..
l - J+i INITIALLY SATURATED AT BASE I
0.85
-
1.0E-03 1.0E-02 1.0E-01 1.0E+OO 1.0E+01 1.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+04 1.0E+05
I
SUCTION (kPa)
0.00 . I
0.05 I • ~
0.10 / - - INITIAL PROFILE

WETTEST CONDITIONS
~
0.15
( DRIEST CONDITIONS
I I
0.20 I I
-0.25 I I
I
I
E
i" 0.30 I
... I
.... " I
fh 0.35 " ~
c r---_ r PLANT
0.40 '
~ I STRESS
\.
0.45 " .. ...

.&.
0.50
... ...
~T
I
I
IJ.
I
0.55 SATURATED
I I
WILTING
0.60 ' 14-
POINT
I-
0.65 . 1~
I
1.0E-03 1.0E-02 1.0E-01 1.0E+OO 1.0E+01 1.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+04 1.0E+05

SUCTION (kPa)
0.00 . I
0.05 ~?~' /
__....-"'"'"''""/~ /
- - INITIAL PROFILE
#
0.10 - ~
- WETIEST CONDITIONS
, \
0.15 1 • -,
-DRIEST CONDITIONS
l
g 0.20
SATURATED
~
• ...
WILTING
POINT
1/
... ... If
i= ...
0.25 ... ...
0.. ...
w ~
c 0.30 ~
'
0.35 ' ~
' ..
0.40
PLANT
' I STRESS r
0.45 ' II
0.50
I
I
~ l
1.0E-03 1.0E-02 1.0E-01 1.0E+OO 1.0E+01 1.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+04 1.0E+05
SUCTION (kPa)
0.00 I I
......
~
I
- - INITIAL PROFILE
0.10 ' I
~
~
... ...
- WETIEST CONDITIONS
-DRIEST CONDITIONS
il(
0.20 < ""
"" ... ...
0.30
...
I
l ""
PLANT
' ,. STRESS
eo.4o
- ' ' l
:1-
r: 0.50
0..
w
c 0.60
- I
I ~:
J
0.70
I
I
( L WILTING
t-
!
I I POINT
0.80
I
I
SATURATED I ,
, "
I
.,.
0.90 I
I
(~INITIALLY SATU~TED AT BASEl
1.00
-
1.0E-03 1.0E-02 1.0E-01 1.0E+OO 1.0E+01 1.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+04 1.0E+05
I
SUCTION (kPa)
The figures show that thinning the peat layer causes an increase in the potential for
saturated conditions to form at the base of the cover. However, thinning the till layer
has little impact on the formation of saturated conditions at the base. All of the covers
had saturated conditions form at their bases at some point during the three model years,
but Figure 6.19 and Figure 6.22 show that the 15-70 and 0-100 design covers,
respectively, both have initial matric suction profiles that converged with saturated
conditions at their bases. This is unacceptable as it means water is frequently coming
into contact with the shale interface; violating the second performance criterion.
The figures indicate that the covers need to be thinker than 60 em, to ensure plant
survival.
6.3.2.3 Runoff
Figure 6.23 shows the amount of runoff generated during the extreme wet, extreme dry
and mean years for each of the design cover systems. The 0-100 cover generated the
most runoff, while the covers with a layer of peat had much lower runoff amounts. This
fact alone justifies the need for a peat layer in the design of the soil cover system, as the
0-100 cover fails to meet the third performance criterion. It is interesting to note that, in
general, the thicker design covers (0-1 00, 30-70, and 15-70) produce more runoff
during the wet year, while the thinner covers (30-35 and 15-35) produce more runoff
during the dry year. An explanation for this is that vegetation on the thinner covers has
much less soil depth to remove water, and causes greater desiccation of the surface of
the cover. As a result, the cover is ill equipped to allow water to infiltrate during dry
years but has more storage capacity during wet years. The reverse is true for the thicker
covers; better equipped to allow water to infiltrate during dry years but less storage
capacity during wet years.
160
~WET YEAR
140 +-~2~------------------------------~•AVERAGEYEAR
DDRYYEAR
120
e 1oo
-E
u.
u.
0
80
z
::J
0::: 60
40
20
0
0-100 30-70 15-70 30-35 15-35
COVER
Figure 6.23. Amount of runoff generated during the extreme wet, extreme dry and
average years for each of the design cover systems.
6.4 Summary and Evaluation of the Results
The results indicate that the peat layer is required to minimize the amount of runoff and
to decrease the potential for saturated conditions forming at the base of the cover. For a
peat-over-till cover system to work effectively, the peat layer needs to be thicker than
30 em to further reduce the potential for saturated conditions forming at the base.
However, thinning the till layer is acceptable since the results show that a thinner till
layer has little impact on any of the criterion. The overall cover thickness needs to be
greater than 60 em to improve plant survival.
Chapter 7
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The objectives of this thesis, as described in chapter one, were to:
1. Determine the soil properties of the cover systems on the South Hills Research Area
by accurately simulating the measured field responses.
2. Give a preliminary recommendation of the most beneficial soil cover system for
Syncrude's saline-sodic overburden.
3. Indicate future research and model improvements that are necessary in order to
evaluate the soil covers' long-term performance.
The fulfillment of these objectives is summarized in the following sections.
7.1 Evaluation of Predictive Capabilities
Field response modeling for the prototype and Bill's Lake cover systems showed the
ability of the Soil Cover model to reasonably simulate field conditions. It showed that
the use of multi-modal soil-water characteristic curves and hydraulic conductivity
functions was necessary to calibrate these parameters to field conditions. The ability to
measure the soil-water characteristic curves in the field, by measuring matric suction
and volumetric water content at similar depths within the cover, greatly aided the
Page 107
Chapter 7: Conclusions and Recommendations Page 108
modeling process. The model results showed that the in situ measurement of soil
porosity is essential, especially when working with covers that were not compacted.
The field measurements of saturated hydraulic conductivity (Meiers, 2002) were
invaluable during the calibration of the hydraulic conductivity functions, as it was found
to be one of the most critical parameters. The instantaneous profile method (Richards
and Weeks, 1953; Weeks and Richards, 1967; Daniel, 1983; Eching et al., 1994) was
useful for confirming the hydraulic conductivity function.
The model indicates that vegetation is the variable that has the most control over water
movement and the amount of water stored within a cover. It is crucial for future
modeling programs to continue to develop ways of accurately simulating plant-water
use.
The modeling of the 2001 data showed that the soil properties developed from the field
response modeling could be applied to a different year to simulate water movement
within a soil layer. However, as the sensitivity analysis (Section 5.4) indicated, the key
parameters of hydraulic conductivity and vegetation had to be re-evaluated to enable the
2001 models to accurately simulate the measured data. The change in vegetation inputs
was most critical, as the dominant species on the prototype covers changed from green
foxtail to sweetclover; two plants with extremely different growing behavior. This
change in vegetation between 2000 and 2001 provides more confirmation for the need
of accurate simulation of plant growth.
A lot of assumptions had to be made to use the Soil Cover model to simulate the studied
soil cover systems. Also, the soil properties and other model inputs were developed
from data collected in a small area during a relatively short period of time. How well
these model inputs will apply spatially and temporally is not yet known. Therefore,
much more work needs to be done before definitive conclusions are drawn regarding
the performance of the covers.
7.2 Preliminary Recommendation for a Cover Design
The predictive modeling showed that the peat layer is required to minimize the amount
of runoff and to decrease the potential for saturated conditions forming at the base of
the cover. For a peat-over-till cover system to work effectively, the peat layer needs to
be thicker than 30 em to further reduce the potential for saturated conditions forming at
the base. However, thinning the till layer is acceptable since the results show that a
thinner till layer has little impact on any of the criterion. The overall cover thickness
needs to be greater than 60 em to improve plant survival.
7.3 Future Research
The following sections recommend future work that should be done to improve the
model simulations and the modeling programs, themselves.
7.3 .1 Research to Improve Model Calibration
It is recommended that column tests be conducted within a laboratory environment on

the peat and till soils separately, and without any vegetative influences, in order to
better describe their soil properties. The columns should be instrumented as they were
in the field so that in situ measurements of the soil-water characteristic curves and
hydraulic conductivity functions can be accomplished.
Water movement within the soil covers should be checked during the winter months.
This would allow for the modeling of water movement within the cover during the
winter months, assisting in determining the overall cover performance.
The assumptions that there was no runoff on the cover systems and that the shale is
impermeable must be re-evaluated for future modeling.
A more concerted effort should be made to understand the behavior of the various plant
species on the South Hills Research Area. Of most importance is the tree species, as
they will be the dominant vegetation on the covers in the future. The development of
the plants should be observed and recorded as often as possible, and the leaf area index
should be measured at scheduled times throughout the growing season. Although root
growth and structure are difficult to measure, more work in this area should be done.
Of most importance is the measurement of root biomass distribution within the soil, as
this seems to correlate with the distribution of water removal. Some of this work has
already begun, but its importance needs to be emphasized.
7.3 .2 Model Improvements
The Soil Cover 2000 program is a good first-step for modeling water movement within
the soil covers. However, two- and, later, three-dimensional water movement analysis
needs to be conducted in order to better describe and predict the performance of the
covers. These future models need to be able to employ the multi-modal soil-water
characteristic curves and hydraulic conductivity functions described in this thesis. The
program should also allow the user to provide a better description of the vegetation and
more accurately predict plant-water use. The program should take into account plant
diversity, perhaps using a weight average. Ideally, the user should be able to model
multiple types of vegetation on a cover and specify where the vegetation is located
(even model patches with no vegetation). Of most importance is finding a model that
can accurately simulate the soil-water use of trees.
7.4 Concluding Remarks
This investigation has shown that the correct description of the soil-water characteristic
curves, hydraulic conductivity functions, and vegetation parameters is paramount to
accurately simulating and predicting water movement through soil cover systems. The
vegetation parameters, although researched the least, are of the most importance.
Therefore, plant-soil-atmosphere relationships must be more thoroughly understood in

order to make improvements to existing modeling programs. Having said this, the
existing models are still useful tools to aid our understanding of how engineered soil
covers perform.
REFERENCES
Alberta Environment, 1995. The Land Surface and Conservation and Reclamation Act:
D & R Approval. OS-1-78. December 1995-.
Anderson, R.N., 1968. Germination and Establishment ofWeeds for Experimental

Purposes. Weed Science Society of America, Urbana, Illinois, pp. 171-172.
Banting, J.D., Molberg, E.S., and Gebhardt, J.P., 1973. Seasonal Emergence and
Persistence of Green Foxtail. Canadian Journal of Plant Science, Vol. 53, pp. 369-
376.
Barbour, S.L., Boese, C., Stolte, B., 2001. Water Balance for Reclamation Covers on
Oilsands Mining Overburden Piles. 2001 Canadian Geotechnical Conference,
Calgary, Canadian Geotechnical Society, pp. 313-319.
Bear, J., and Bachmat, Y., 1991. Introduction to Transport Phenomena in Porous
Media. K.luwer Academic, Hingham, Massachusetts.
Blackshaw, R.E., Stobbe, E.H., Shaykewich, C.F., and Woodbury, W., 1981. Influence
of Soil Temperature and Soil Moisture on Green Foxtail (Setaria viridis)
Establishment in Wheat (Triticum aestivum). Weed Science, Vol. 29, No.2, pp.
179-184.
Boese, C.D., 2003. The Design and Installation of a Field Instrumentation Program for
the Proper Evaluation of Soil-Atmosphere Fluxes in a Cover over Sadie Shale
Overburden. M.Sc. Thesis, In progress, Department of Civil Engineering,
University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada.
Cook, D., 1994. Modification of a Finite Element Soil-Atmosphere Model. B.Sc.

Undergraduate Thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, University of
Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada.
Daniel, D.E., 1983. Permeability Test for Unsaturated Soil. Geotechnical Testing
Journal, Vol. 6, No.2, pp. 81-86.
Page 112
References Page 113
Dawson, J.H., and Bruns, V.F., 1962. Emergence ofBarnyardgrass, Green Foxtail, and
Yellow Foxtail Seedlings from Various Soil Depths. Weeds, Vol. 10, pp. 136-139.
DeJong, R., Topp, G.C., and Reynolds, W.D., 1992. The use of measured and
estimated hydraulic properties in the simulation of soil water content profiles: a case
study. In Proceedings of the International Workshop, Indirect Methods for
Estimating the Hydraulic Properties of Unsaturated Soils, ed. M. Th. van
Genuchten, F.J. Leij, and L.J. Lund, University of California, Riverside, pp. 569-
584.
de Vries, D.A., 1963. Thermal properties of soils. Physics ofPlant Environment, W.R.
Van Wihk (ed.), North Holland Pub. Co., pp. 382.
Dibbern, J.C., 1947. Vegetative response ofBromus inermis to certain variations in

environment. Botanical Gazette, Vol. 109, pp.44-58.
Douglas, B., Thomas, A., Morrison, I., and Maw, M., 1985. The biology of Canadian
weeds. Canadian Journal of Plant Science, Vol. 65, pp. 669-690.
Duke, J.A. 1978. The quest for tolerant germplasm. !nASA Special Symposium 32,
Crop tolerance to suboptimal/and conditions, American Society of Agronomy,
Madison, Wisconsin, pp. 1-61.
Duke, J .A., 1983. Online. Handbook of Energy Crops: Bromus inermis Leyss..
Internet. Available:
www.hort.purdue.edu/newcrop/nexus/Bromus_inermis_nex.html
Durner, W., 1992. Predicting the unsaturated hydraulic conductivity using multi-
porosity water retention curves. In Proceedings of the International Workshop,
Indirect Methods for Estimating the Hydraulic Properties of Unsaturated Soils, ed.
M.Th. van Genuchten, F.J. Leij, and L.J. Lund, University of California, Riverside,
pp.183-202.
Durner, W., 1994. Hydraulic conductivity estimation for soils with heterogeneous pore
structure. Water Resources Research, Vol. 30, No.2, pp. 211-223.
Eching, S.O., Hopmans, J.W., and Wendroth, 0., 1994. Unsaturated Hydraulic
Conductivity from Transient Multistep Outflow and Soil Water Pressure Data. Soil
Science Society of America Journal, Vol. 58, pp.687-695.
Eckardt, N., 1987. Online. Element Stewardship Abstract for Melilotus alba, Melilotus
officina/is. For the Natural Conservancy. Internet. Available:
http://thcweeds. ucdavis.edulesadocs/documnts/melioff.html
Edlefsen, N.E., and Anderson, A.B.C., 1943. Thermodynamics of Soil Moisture.

Hilgardia, Vol. 15, No. 2, pp. 31-298.
References Page 114
Eichhorn, L.C., and Watts, C.R., 1984. Plant succession on bums in the river breaks of
central Montana. Proceedings, Montana Academy of Science, Vol. 43, pp 21-34.
Feddes, R.A., Kowaklik, P.J., and Zaradny, H., 1978. Simulation of Field Water Use
and Crop Yield. John Wiley and Sons, Toronto. p. 188.
Fredlund, D. G., and Xing, A., 1994. Equations for the Soil-Water Characteristic Curve.
Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 31, pp. 521-532.
Fredlund, D. G., Xing, A., and Huang, S., 1994. Predicting the permeability function for
unsaturated soils using the soil-water characteristic curve. Canadian Geotechnical
Journal, Vol. 31, pp. 533-546.
Granger, R.J., 1989. An Examination of the Concept ofPotential Evaporation. Journal

ofHydrology, Vol. 111, pp. 9-19.
Gray, D.M., Gordon, A.M., and Wigham, J.M., 1973. Section III: Energy, Evaporation
and Evaporation. Handbook on the Principles of Hydrology, Donald M. Gray
Editor, Water Information Center, Inc., Syosset, New York.
Harman, J.R., 1992. Sweetclover: an important honeybplant in North America, but not
every year. American Bee Journal, Vol. 132, pp 169-171.
Heidinger, M.E., 1975. Burning a protected tallgrass prairie to suppress sweetclover,

Melilotus alba Desr. Prairie: A Mulitple View, M.K. Wali, ed. University ofNorth
Dakota Press, pp 123-132.
Holman, J., 2001. Online. Green foxtail. Internet. Available:

http://weeds.montana.edu/crop/
Horton, J.H., and Hawkins, R.H., 1965. Flow path of rain from the soil surface to the
water table. Soil Science Society of America Journal, Vol. 100, No.6, pp. 377-383.
Jacobsen, O.H., 1989. Unsaturated hydraulic conductivity for some Danish soils,
Methods and characterization of soils (in Danish). Tidsskrift. Planteavl., Vol. 93,
No. S2030, pp 1-60.
Johansen, 0., 1975. Thermal Conductivity of Soils. Ph.D. Thesis, (CRREL Draft
Translation 637, 1977), Trondheim, Norway.
Joshi, B., 1993. A Finite Element Model for the Coupled Flow of Moisture and Heat in
Soils under Atmospheric Forcing. M.Sc. Thesis, Department of Civil Engineering,
Joshi, B., Barbour, S.L., Krause, A.E., and Wilson, G.W., 1993. A finite element model
for the coupled flow of heat and moisture in soils under atmospheric forcing. Finite
References Page 115
elements in analysis and design. The Journal of Applied Finite Elements and
Computer Aided Engineering, Vol. 15, pp. 57-68.
Kastanek, F., 2001. Traditional and New Methods to Describe Multimodal Soil Water
Characteristics. 2nd International Symposium on Preferential Flow (Water
Movement and Chemical Transport in the Environment), ASAE, January 3-5, 2001,
Honolulu, Hawaii.
Kimball, B.A., Jackson, R.D., Reginato, R.J., Nakayama, F.S., and ldso, S.B., 1976.
Comparison of Field-Measured and Calculated Soil-Heat Fluxes. Soil Science
Society of America Proceedings, Vol. 40, No. 1, pp. 18-25.
King, L.G., 1965. Description of soil characteristics for partially saturated flow. Soil
Science Society Proceedings, pp. 359-362.
Klemow, K.M. and Raynal, D.J., 1981. Population ecology of Melilotus alba in a
limestone quarry. Journal ofEcology, Vol. 69, pp 149-152.
Lai, S., Tiedje, J.M., and Erickson, A.E., 1976. Insitu Measurement of Gas Diffusion
Coefficient in Soils. Soil Science Society of America Proceedings, Vol. 40, No. 1,
pp. 3-6.
Lamba, P.S., Ahlgren, H.L., and Mackenkirn, R.J., 1949. Root growth of alfalfa,
medium red clover, bromegrass and timothy under various soil conditions.
Agronomy Journal, Vol. 41, pp. 451-458.
Lauer, E., 1953. Uber die Keimtemperatur von Ackerunkrautern und deren Einfluss auf
die Zusammensetzung von Unkrautgesellschaften (in German). Flora Allg. Bot.
Zeit., Vol. 140, pp 551-595.
Leskiw, L.A., 1998. Land Capability Classification for Forest Ecosystems in the Oil
Sands Region - Revised Edition. Alberta Environmental Protection, Environmental
Sciences Division, Edmonton, Alberta. Report ESD/LM/98-1.
Leskiw, L.A., Yarmuch, M.S., and Moskal, T.D., 1999. Reclaimed Soils Related to the
Syncrude Capping Study. Prepared for Syncrude Canada Inc. by Can-Ag
Enterprises Ltd.
Machibroda, R.M., 1994. Evaluation of Evaporative Fluxes from Mine Tailings Using
the Modified Penman Formulation. M.Sc. Thesis, Department of Civil Engineering,
Martin, J. H., and Leonard, W.H., 1949. Sweetclover. Principles ofField Crop
Production. Macmillan Press, New York. pp. 685-699.
References Page 116
McKenna, G., 2001. Closure Planning, Landscape Design, and Landscape Performance
at 69 Mines. Syncrude Canada Ltd., Bitumen Production Development and
University of Alberta, Department of Civil Engineering, April 2001, p. 224.
Meiers, G., 2002. The Use of Field Measurements of Hydraulic Conductivity to

Characterize the Performance of Reclamation Covers with Time. M. Eng. Thesis,
Department of Civil Engineering, Division of Environmental Engineering,
Monteith, J .L., and Unsworth, M.H., 1990. Principles of Environmental Physics. 2nd
Edition, Edward and Arnold, London.
Newman, G.P., 1995. Heat and Mass Transfer in Unsaturated Soils during Freezing.
M.Sc. Thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Saskatchewan,
Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada.
Newman, L.L., Barbour, S.L., and Fredlund, D.G., 1997. Mechanisms for preferential
flow in vertically layered, unsaturated waste rock. 50th Canadian Geotechnical
Conference, Ottawa, Canada, pp. 201-208.
Newman, L.L., Wilson, G.W., and Reed, M.P., 1999. Alligator Ridge tailings
impoundment closure: A 100-yr performance of a soil cover. Proceedings of the
Sixth International Conference on Tailings and Mine Waste, Fort Collins, USA,
pp. 417-425.
Orwick, P.L., and Schreiber, M.M., 1975. Differential Root Growth of Four Setaria
Taxa. Weed Science, Vol. 23, No.5, pp. 364-367.
Othmer, H., Diekkriiger, B., and Kutilek, M., 1991. Bimodal porosity and Unsaturated
Hydraulic Conductivity. Journal of Soil Science, Vol. 152, pp. 139-149.
Penman, H.L., 1948. Natural Evapotranspiration from Open Water, Bare Soil, and
Grass. Proc. R. Soc. London, Series A, Vol. 193, pp. 120-145.
Perry, M.C., 2001. Online. Photograph ofBromus Inermis. Internet. Available:

www.pwrc.usgs.gov/history/herbarium/bromus inermis.htm
Peters, R.R., and Klavetter, E.A., 1988. A continuum model for water movement in an
unsaturated fractured rock mass. Water Resources Research, Vol. 24, pp. 416-430.
Pojar, J ., and MacKinnon, A., 1994. Plants of Coastal British Columbia including
Washington, Oregon & Alaska. Lone Pine Publishing, Vancouver, British
Columbia, Canada.
Prasad, R., 1988. A Linear Root Uptake Model. Journal of Hydrology, Vol. 99, pp.
297-306.
References Page 117
Province of British Columbia, Ministry of Agriculture and Food, 1998. Online. Green
Foxtail (Setaria viridis). Internet. Available:
www.agf.gov.bc.ca/croplive/cropprot/weedguide/gmfox.htm
Pruess, K., Wang, S.Y., and Tsang, Y.W., 1990. On thermohydrologic conditions near
high level nuclear wastes emplaced in partially saturated fractured tuff, 2, Effective
continuum approximation. Water Resources Research, Vol. 26, pp.1249-1261.
Ragab, R., Feven, J., and Hillel, D., 1981. Comparative study of numerical and
laboratory methods for determining the hydraulic conductivity function of a sand.
Journal of Soil Science, Vol. 131, pp. 375-388.
Ritchie, J.T., 1972. Model for Predicting Evaporation from a Row Crop with
Incomplete Cover. Water Resources Research, Vol. 8, No.5, pp. 1204-1213.
Richards, S.J., and Weeks, L.V., 1953. Capillary Conductivity Values from Moisture
Yield and Tension Measurements in Soil Columns. Soil Science Society of
America Proceedings, Vol. 17, No.3, pp. 206-209.
Ross, P.J., and Smettem, K.J.R., 1993. Describing soil hydraulic properties with sums
of simple functions. Soil Science Society of America Journal, Vol. 57, pp. 26-29.
Sather, N., 1987. Online. Element Stewardship Abstract for Bromus lnermis. For the
Natural Conservancy. Internet. Available:
http://tncweeds. ucdavis.edu/ esadocs.html/documents/bromine.rtf
Saxton, K.E., 1981. Mathematical Modelling of Evapotranspiration on Agricultural

Watersheds. Modeling Components of the Hydrologic Cycle. Singh, H. (ed.), May
18-21, 1981. pp. 183-203.
Schjenning, P., 1985. Poresitetsforhold i landbrugsjord, I, Modeller og

jordtypeforskelle (in Danish). Tidsskrift. Planteavl., Vol. 89, pp.411-423.
Sharma, M.L., and Uehara, G., 1968. Influence of soil structure on water relations in
low humic latosols, I, Water retention. Soil Science Society of America
Proceedings, Vol. 32, pp.765-771.
Silins, U., and Rothwell, R.L., 1998. Forest Peatland Drainage and Subsidence Affect
Soil Water Retention and Transport Properties in an Alberta Peatland. Soil Science
of America Journal, Vol. 62, pp. 1048-1056.
Smettem, K.R.J ., and Kirby, C., 1990. Measuring the hydraulic properties of a stable
aggregated soil. Journal ofHydrology, Vol. 117, pp. 1-13.
References Page 118
Smith, D., Graber, L.F., 1948. The influence of top growth removal on the root and
vegetation development of biennial sweetclover. Journal of the American Society
of Agronomy, Vol. 40, pp 818-831.
Soil Cover, 2000. Unsaturated Soils Group, Department of Civil Engineering,

Stephens, D.B., and Rehfeldt, K.R., 1985. Evaluation of closed-form analytical models
to calculate conductivity in a fine sand. Soil Science Society of America Journal,
Vol. 49, pp.12-19.
Stolte, W.J., Barbour, S.L., and Boese, C.D., 2000. Reclamation of Saline-Sodic Waste
Dumps Associated with the Oilsands Industry. 25th Annual Meeting and
Conference of the Canadian Land Reclamation Association, September 16-21, 2000,
Edmonton, Alberta.
Sullivan, J., 1992. Melilotus officina/is. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory (2002,
September). Fire Effects Information System. Online. Available:
http://www .fs.fed. us/database/feis/plants/forb/meloff/all.html
Swanson, D .A., 1995. Predictive Modelling of Moisture Movement in Engineered Soil

Covers for Acid Generating Mine Waste. M.Sc. Thesis, Department of Civil
Engineering, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada.
Syncrude, 2000. Online. The Facts. Internet. Available: www.syncrude.com
Tratch, D., 1994. Moisture Uptake within the Root Zone. M.Sc. Thesis, Department of
Civil Engineering, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada.
Turkington, R.A., Cavers, P .B., and Empel, E., 1978. The biology of Canadian weeds.
29. Melilotus alba Desr. And M. officinalis (L.) Lam. Canadian Journal of Plant
Science, Vol. 58, pp 523-537.
Uchytil, R. J., 1992. Melilotus alba. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,
Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory (2002, September).
Fire Effects Information System. Online. Available:
http://www. fs. fed. us/database/feis/plants/forb/melalb/all.html
Unsaturated Soils Group, 2000. Soil Cover User's Manual. Department of Civil
Engineering, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada.
USGS, 2001. Online. Species Abstracts of Highly Disruptive Exotic Plants at Scotts
BluffNational Monument Bromus inermis. Internet. Available:
http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/othrdata/exoticab/scotbrom.htm
References Page 119
USGS, 2002. Online. An Assessment of Exotic Plant Species of Rocky Mountain

National Park Melilotus alba Medic. Melilotus officina/is (L.) Pall. Internet.
Available: http://www .npwrc.usgs. gov/resource/othrdata/explant/melialba.htm
Vanden Born, W.H., 1971. Green Foxtail: Seed Dormancy, Germination and Growth.
Canadian Journal of Plant Science, Vol. 51, pp. 53-59.
van Genuchten, M.T., 1980. A Closed-form Equation for Predicting the Hydraulic
Conductivity of Unsaturated Soils. Soil Science Society of America Journal, Vol.
44, No. 5, pp. 892-898.
van Rees, K., and Jackson, D., 2002. Root Distributions for Vegetation Growing on the
SW30 Overburden Hill and Jack Pine Growing by Bill's Pond. Prepared for
S yncrude Canada Inc.
Wang, J.S.Y., and Narasimhan, T.N., 1985. Hydrologic mechanisms governing fluid
flow in a partially saturated fractured porous medium. Water Resources Research,
Vol. 21, pp. 1861-1874.
Wang, J.S.Y., and Narasimhan, T.N., 1990. Fluid flow in partially saturated, welded-
nonmelded tuffunits. Geoderma, Vol. 46, pp. 155-168.
Weeks, L.V. and Richards, S.J., 1967. Soil-Water Properties Computed from Transient
Flow Data. Soil Science Society of America Proceedings, Vol. 31, No. 6, pp. 721-
725.
Weiss, R., Aim, J., Laiho, R., and Laine, J., 1998. Modeling Moisture Retention in Peat
Soils. Soil Science of America Journal, Vol. 62, pp. 305-313.
Welsh, S.L., Atwood, N.D., Goodrich, S., and Higgins, L.C., eds., 1987. A Utah flora.
Great Basin Naturalist Memoir No.9. Provo, UT. Bringham Young University, p
894.
Wheeler, W.A., and Hill, D.D., 1957. Grassland seeds. Princeton, NJ, D. Van
Nostrand Company, Inc., p 628.
Wilson, G.W., 1990. Soil Evaporative Fluxes for Geotechnical Engineering Problems.
Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Saskatchewan,
Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada.
Yabuki, K., and Miyangawa, I., 1959. Studies on the effects of diurnal variation of
temperature upon the germination of seeds (3) The germination of weeds and
condiment crops (in Japanese, English summary). Nogyo Kish6 J. Agr. Meterol.,
Tokyo, Japan, Vol. 15, pp. 49-54.
Appendix A
Soil-Water Characteristic Curves and
Hydraulic Conductivity Functions
This appendix contains the graphs used to compare the in situ and laboratory
measurements to the calibrated soil-water characteristic curves. This appendix also
contains the graphs used to compare the instantaneous profile method and Guelph
permeameter (Meiers, 2002) results to the calibrated hydraulic conductivity functions.
-Model- Shallow Peat SWCC

<> In situ Data- D1Cover: 0.05 m Depth
1- 0.6 ;.;..;..-;;;;;;;;!;;;;;=~===--t-_...~-t--l • In situ Data- D2 Cover: 0.05 m Depth

ffi
1-
m Laboratory Results - Peat
z 0.5 -,-----+------1-11~...---::~kl-----l·a-,.Measured Porosity Range
0
0
" 0.4
~
~
~ 0.3 +-----t-----+---~L..::
":Ew
1-
~ 0.2+-----+-----~~~~~~~~~~~~-----+---~
..J
0
>
0.1 +-----+-----~----+-~~~-~--~----~+---~~
0.0+-~~~--~~~~~~~~~~--~~~~~~~~~~
1.0E-02 1.0E-01 1.0E+OO 1.0E+01 1.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+04 1.0E+05

SUCTION (kPa}
Figure A.l. Comparison of the soil-water characteristic curve used to model the
shallow peat layers to the in situ and laboratory data.
Page 120
Appendix A: SWCC and Hydraulic Conductivity Functions Page 121
-Model - Deep Peat SWCC

<> In situ Data - D1 Cover: 0.16 m Depth
t-
z • In situ Data - D2 Cover: 0.1 0 m Depth
w
t-
z 0.5 c Laboratory Results- Peat
0
u
~
Measured Porosity Range
~ 0.4
~
~ 0.3
~
t- <>
w •
:E
~ 0.2 •
..J • •
0
>
0.1
0.0+-,-~~--~~mr~~~~,-~~--~~~~~~*-~~~
1.0E-02 1.0E-01 1.0E+OO 1.0E+01 1.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+04 1.0E+05
SUCTION (kPa)
Figure A.2. Comparison of the soil-water characteristic curve used to model the deep
peat layers to the in situ and laboratory data.
-Model -Till SWCC

0.6 - <> In situ Data - D1 Cover: 0.26 m Depth
t-
zw • In situ Data- D1 Cover: 0.34 m Depth
In situ Data- D1 Cover: 0.43 m Depth
~ o.s~~.~----,_------+-------M !!.
0 m Laboratory Results - Till

u
. ~ 0.4+---~--+-------~-----4~=====+======~======~====~
~
~ 0.3+-----~r-----~~----~~~~~~ ----+-------+------~
~
t-
w
~ 0.2+-------r------4--~~~--~--~~----r------4------~
..J Ill
~
0.1t-----~----J-____J_~~~~~~~~~~--~
Ill
1\l
0.0+-,-~~--~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~nm
1.0E-02 1.0E-01 1.0E+OO 1.0E+01 1.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+04 1.0E+05

SUCTION (kPa)
Figure A.3. Comparison of the soil-water characteristic curve used to model the till
layers to the in situ data measured from the Dl till and the laboratory data.
Appendix A: SWCC and Hvdraulic Conductivity Functions Page 122
-Model- Till SWCC

<> In situ Data - D2 Cover: 0.20 m Depth
1- • In situ Data- D2 Cover: 0.25 m Depth

z
w 1:. In situ Data- D2 Cover: 0.32 m Depth
1-
z 0.5 ---r----+------11--------t----l
0 a Laboratory Results - Till
(.)
Q:
~ 0.4T--T--+------II-------t-------+----~----,_--~
~
~ 0.3T---~+-----~r-----t------+---~----,_--~
Q:
1-
w
~ 0.2 ~---+-----1---____.;:::
-'
~ •
0.1 ~---+----~1------4-~~-+----~----,_~-~
0.0+-~~~+--~~~~----~~~~~~~~~~~~~~m-~~~
1.0E-02 1.0E-01 1.0E+OO 1.0E+01 1.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+04 1.0E+05

SUCTION (kPa)
layers to the in situ data measured from the D2 till and the laboratory data.
0.7.--.--------~--~----~------~------~------~----~
-Model - D3 Peat SWCC
-Model - Shallow Peat SWCC
0.6 t--;;:::::====~::::::::~1---H
!z , Model - Deep Peat SWCC
~ <> In situ Data - D3 Cover: 0.05 m
~ ·
05
m Laboratory Results- Peat
~ Measured Porosity Range
~ 0.4~---~----~-~~.~----+------r------r---~
~
~ 0.3 ~---t-----4--~
Q:
1-
w
::IE 0.2
:::) ~---+------+----r-----t!J
-'
~
0.1 +------+----t-----~-----+-EJ----~~~--~----~~
1!1
EJ Ill
0.0+-~~~~~~~~----~~~--~~~~-r~~~~~m-~~~
1.0E-02 1.0E-01 1.0E+OO 1.0E+01 1.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+04 1.0E+05

SUCTION (kPa)
Figure A.5. Comparison of the soil-water characteristic curve used to model the
shallow, deep and D3 peat layers to the in situ data measured from the D3 peat.
0.7
Model - Till SWCC
0.6 <> In situ Data- D3 Cover: 0.20 m Depth

1-
z • In situ Data- D3 Cover: 0.90 m Depth
w
1- t. In situ Data- D3 Cover: 1.15 m Depth
z 0.5
0 c Laboratory Results - Till
0
a:: - Measured Porosity Range
~ 0.4
<C
~
~ 0.3
a::
1-
<>
<>
w
:E
~ 0.2
..J
0
• •
>
0.1
O.OT-.-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~m--r~.rrm
1.0E-02 1.0E-01 1.0E+OO 1.0E+01 1.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+04 1.0E+05
SUCTION (kPa)
layers to the in situ data measured from the D3 till and the laboratory data.
-Model - Intermediate PeaUTill Mix SWCC

Model - D3 Peat SWCC
Model - Till SWCC
• In situ Data- D3 Cover: 0.30 m Depth
• In situ Data- D3 Cover: 0.55 m Depth
0.0+-.-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-,-r~mr-.~~~-r~~
1.0E-02 1.0E-01 1.0E+OO 1.0E+01 1.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+04 1.0E+05
SUCTION (kPa)
Figure A. 7. Comparison of the soil-water characteristic curve used to model the D3
peat, till and peat/till mix layers to the in situ data measured from the D3 peat/till mix.
0.6 1----+-------H
-Model - Shallow Peat/Till Mix SWCC
t-
z o In situ Data- BL Cover: 0.05 m Depth
w
t-
z 0.5 +----+------+----H Measured Porosity Range
0
0
0::
~ 0.4,~---+---~~---4----+---~---~----~
~
~ 0.3+-------~----~~~----+-------+------~------,_----~
0::
t-
w
:E 0.2
::l +-----t--------1----~
...1
~
0.1 +--------r-------t----------4~~~
0.0+-~~~--~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~nm
1.0E-02 1.0E-01 1.0E+OO 1.0E+01 1.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+04 1.0E+05
SUCTION (kPa)
shallow peat/till mix layer to the in situ data measured from the BL peat/till mix.
0.7.-------,------,------~------~------,------,------~
-Model-Intermediate Peat/Til Mix SWCC
0.6 o In situ Data- BL Cover: 0.20 m Depth
!Z •
In situ Data- BL Cover: 0.35 m Depth
z~ 0. 5 +-------+-------1--------H A In situ Data- BL Cover: 0.55 m Depth

0 <"-·"·' Measured Porosity Range
0
0:: ---
~ 0.4~----~~-------+------~------,_______+-------+-----~
~
~ 0.3 +----~-----1----=::::~!!!WI,
0::
t-
w
:E
::l 0. 2 -+--------+-------t-------------=+--_____::
...1
~
0.1 +-------+-------l-------4-------+------~------~~~~
0.0+-~~~~~~~~--~~~--~~~~~~mr~~~m--r~~
1.0E-02 1.0E-01 1.0E+OO 1.0E+01 1.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+04 1.0E+05

SUCTION (kPa)
intermediate peat/till mix layer to the in situ data measured from the BL peat/till mix.
w
0.7
0.6
2
R =0.53 I - Model - Deep Peat/Till Mix SWCC
1-
z <> In situ Data- BL Cover: 0.70 m Depth
w
1-
z 0.5
0
(.)
... ""-'Measured Porosity Range
i
0:::
0.4
-
-
-~
~
~
~
~
..,.,. -~ ~QO
~ 0.3
<>~
g<>~~~ """-)~
co A .t'>
~"'<>
'
0::: <> <>
1- v -..e
w
::E 0.2
;::)
<>
~
~
..J
0
>
0.1
I
0.0
1.0E-02 1.0E-01 1.0E+OO 1.0E+01 1.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+04 1.0E+05
SUCTION (kPa}
Figure A.lO. Comparison of the soil-water characteristic curve used to model the deep
peat/till mix layer to the in situ data measured from the BL peat/till mix.
1.0E+OO -Hydraulic Conductivity Function for the Shallow Peat - 2000
1.0E-01
-- Hydraulic Conductivty Function for the Shallow Peat - 2001
-?<=-Guelph Permeameter- Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity Range (2001)
0•Instantaneous Profile Method Results - D1 Prototype Cover: 11 em Depth
--5
0 1.oE-o2 ~~
1.0E-03
- - - - . .. ...
Instantaneous Profile Method Results- D2 Prototype Cover: 7.5 em Depth
,- , , Guelph Permeameter- Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity Range (2000)
~ 1.0E-04
·~
~'
>
t= 1.0E-05 " ' - ' ,o
~:•_.... •I!•
II-'
(.)
;::) 1.0E-06 t-
2000 R2 = 2.47 II
c 2001 R 2 = 2.62 ~~- If
z 1.0E-07 .... ~~ ~0
0 •
~ ~n
~
(.)
(.) 1.0E-08
:::i
~~
;::)
~
c
>
1.0E-09
1.0E-10
'\
'0 .. ..
::1: 1.0E-11
1.0E-12
1.0E-13
1.0E-02 1.0E-01 1.0E+OO 1.0E+01 1.0E+02
"'" 1.0E+03
•
~.,_,
1.0E+04 1.0E+05
SUCTION (kPa}
Figure A.11. Comparison of the 2000 and 2001 hydraulic conductivity functions and
field measurements for the shallow peat layers.
1.0E+OO -.-----,--r---------------------.
-Model- Deep Peat Hydraulic Conductivty Function (2000)
1.0E-01 Model- Deep Peat Hydraulic Conductivity Function (2001)
• Instantaneous Profile Method Results- D1Cover: 0.21 m Depth
-5
fi) 1.0E-02 +------1--1
-
1.0E-03 ......,______,..__-+----~
o Instantaneous Profile Method Results- D2 Cover: 0.15 m Depth
Guelph Perrneameter- Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity Range (2000)
, "'X'""'' Guelph Permeameter- Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity Range (2001)
~ 1.0E-04 -l-~~~=====+=====I+=======+=======+=====+======r
~ 1.OE-05 -r----+-~;;::---1---_.Q_--*-=--_____.!Jo.--+-----+----+-------1
0
S 1.0E-06 +----+---~!!!!"""'!!!!~~~~~f--------+----+----i
~ 1.0E-07 -+-----1
0 2000 R2 = 1.01
o 1.0E-08 -+------1 2001 R2 = 1.01
:::i
~ 1.0E-09
o 1.0E-1 0 -t----+---+-----+-------J------+=~.----+------l
>
::x: 1.0E-11 -t----+---+-----+-------J~---+--.o--~~-----l
1.0E-12 -r----+---+----+----~-----+-----4-~..-------l
1.OE -1 3 -t--...,.....,.""10""!.,.,_--,-~T'T"T"T'1+--~~,...,....l-----.-..,.-.,....,~f..----.,.--.--,.....,...,.,.-rr~--......,....-T"'"""""'"'.,..,..,...j..___,.--,--r-n-n~
1 .OE-02 1.0E-01 1.0E+OO 1.0E+01 1.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+04 1.0E+05

SUCTION (kPa)
field measurements for the deep peat layers.
1.0E+OO ,--------,------l -Model- Till Hydraulic Conductivity Function (2000)
Model - Till Hydraulic Conductivity Function (2001)
1.0E-01 +-------+----1 • Instantaneous Profile Method (IPM) Results- D1Cover: 0.30 m Depth
--
o IPM Results- D1Cover: 0.39 m Depth
1.0E-02 .a. IPM Results- D2 Cover: 0.225 m Depth
UJ
c IPM Resuls- D2 Cover: 0.30 m Depth
..[ 1.0E-03 + IPM Results- D3 Cover: 0.25 Depth
::+:: IPM Results- D3 Cover: 1.02 m Depth
~ 1.0E-04 Guelph Permeameter - Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity Range (2000)
>
i= 1.0E-05
"'~'-' Permeameter - Saturated l-lvrllr::~ .. llir.
0
:::» 1.0E-06
0
z
0 1.0E-07
0
0 1.0E-08
:::i
:::» 1.0E-09
~ 2000 R2 = 0. 77
0 1.0E-10
> 2001 R2 = 0.90
:X:
1.0E-11
1.0E-12
1.0E-13
1.0E-02 1.0E-01 1.0E+OO 1.0E+01 1.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+04 1.0E+05
SUCTION (kPa)
Figure A.l3. Comparison of the 2000 and 2001 hydraulic conductivity functions and
field measurements for the till layers.
1.0E+OO -Model- D3 Peat Hydraulic Conductivity Function (2000)

• Instantaneous Profile Method Results - D3 Cover: 0.15 m Depth
1.0E-01 "''- · Guelph Permeameter - Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity Range
--
--5
Model - D3 Peat Hydraulic Conductivity Function (2001)
0 1.0E-02
1.0E-03
~~ - --- - - - ' . '"'~'"Guelph Permeameter- Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity Range (2001)
·r- ""'-~_ ...

~ 1.0E-04
"~~
>
i= 1.0E-05
(.)
::l 1.0E-06 r---- 2000 R2 = 4.95
c
z 2001 R2 = 6.43 ~l\.;..
0 1.0E-07 -
~
(.)
(.) 1.0E-08
:J
::l 1.0E-09 '\
~
c
>
:I:
1.0E-10 I"~ ~
1.0E-11
1.0E-12
1.0E-13
1.0E-02 1.0E-01 1.0E+OO 1.0E+01 1.0E+02
SUCTION (kPa)
1.0E+03
""' '1.0E+04
-
1.0E+05
field measurements for the D3 peat layer.
1.0E+OO -Model- Shallow Peat!Till Mix Hydraulic Conductivity Function (2000)
1.0E-01 -- Model -Shallow Peat!Till Mix Hydraulic Conductivity Function (2001)
• Instantaneous Profile Method Results- BL Cover: 0.10 m Depth
-5
0 1.0E-02
'""'-'*""Guelph Permeameter- Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity Range (2000)
-~ 1.0E-03
1.0E-04 '
~ t'
~Guelph Permeameter- Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity Range (2001)
- - - - - - - - ,. . .
>
i= 1.0E-05
---.1\.
"·":
':"
(.) ·r-
::l 1.0E-06
c
z 1.0E-07 2000 R2 = 4.68 • •
0
2001 R2 = 4.68
(.)
(.) 1.0E-08 ~
:J
::l 1.0E-09 ~
~
c
>
:I:
1.0E-10
1.0E-11
1.0E-12
"'"'"
1.0E-13
1.0E-02 1.0E-01 1.0E+OO 1.0E+01 1.0E+02
SUCTION (kPa)
1.0E+03
""
1.0E+04
-1.0E+05
field measurements for the shallow peat/till mix layer.

1.0E+OO -r-------,,..---1 -Model-Intermediate Peatrrill Mix Hydraulic Conductivity Function (2000)

Model - Intermediate Peatrrill Mix Hydraulic Conductivity Function (2001)
1.0E-01 -+-----+---~ • lnstantantaneous Profile Method (IPM) Results- D3 Cover: 0.52 m Depth
o IPM Results- D3 Cover: 0.72 m Depth
• IPM Results- BL Cover: 0.28 m Depth
U) 1.0E-02 +-----lf....-.......J m IPM Results- BL Cover: 0.45 m Depth
-CJE.0E-0 ....,__ _ _1------i ~,,-,···Guelph Permeameter- Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity Range
1 3 = ~,Guelph Permeameter - Saturated l-lvrllr~:n•llir
_, ~--~~~~~~~~~~~~~----~r-~~~r-~
~ 1.0E-04 ~::-----+----+-----+-----+----+-----+-----1
~ 1.0E-05 ~----""~~--+------+--......_-----1!-----+------+----1
0
E 1.0E-06 -t-----+----..p!lloo""-==-- El
~ 1.0E-07 - t - - - - - + - - - - - 1 - - - - 1 & .
0
o 1.0E-08 -+-----1
2000 R2 = 1.15
::::i
~ 1.0E-09 2001 R2 = 1.15
c 1.0E-1 0 -r-----t-----+-----1-----+--~---+----+------l
>
~ 1.0E-11 +----+---~--~---~--~~---4---~
1.0E-12 +-----+---+-----+------'1-----+--~~---1
1.0 E-13 -t---r-T.,..,.-rnt--...--,-M""MTt--~r-rrr-r-r+--.-r-r-n-r-n+--...--r--T"""I'"TTTTt--r--r-T"""TTT,.-t-::l~I'""'"'"T"TrM""r"l

1.0E-02 1.0E-01 1.0E+OO 1.0E+01 1.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+04 1.0E+05
SUCTION (kPa)
field measurements for the intermediate peat/till mix layers.
1.0E+OO -Model- Deep Peatrrill Mix Hydraulic Conductivty Function (2000)
1.0E-01 -- Model - Deep Peatrrill Mix Hydraulic Conductivity Function (2001)
u; 1.0E-02 • Instantaneous Profile Method - BL Cover: 0.62 m Depth
-S
_, 1.0E-03 ~
·.-,.·w..-.
,., Guelph Permeameter - Saturated Hydraulic Conductivty Range (200Q)
"""*-Guelph Permeameter- Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity Range (2001)

~ 1.0E-04 'V ...
>
i= 1.0E-05
\\lit
.t--:....... .
-..... •
'
~ -....
.;.
0
::J 1.0E-06 • •
~· ••
Q
z
0
0
1.0E-07
1.0E-08
.
~r.1;(,
~- ~~
0
::::i
::J 1.0E-09
2
2000 R = 1.40
2001 R 2 = 1.40
....••
·'·····~~
• •
~
Q
>
~
1.0E-10
1.0E-11
' ""'
1.0E-12
1.0E-13
1.0E-02 1.0E-01 1.0E+OO 1.0E+01 1.0E+02
SUCTION (kPa)
1.0E+03
"' "'
1.0E+04
.....
1.0E+05
field measurements for the deep peat/till mix layer.
AppendixB
Calibrated Model Results
This appendix contains the water balance, matric suction, and soil temperature graphs
used to compare the computed and measured values for the D2, D3 and Bill's Lake
(BL) cover systems during the 2000 simulation period.
B.l Water Balance Components
300
200
~ Precip. -_,.
E
.§.. 100
_,... _,- -~
w
(.)
z I
_,.. v
:3 0 --..
c(
~ -100 ~~ ~
AT
~
w ~ !---......
t-
r - A E - .......
;-200
w
>
i= -300 ~
'
:3::»
:E -400 ~-
~
::»
(.)
-500
PE
-r----..__ r-
-600
Figure B.l. Calculated water balance components for the D2 prototype cover.
Page129
Appendix B: Calibrated Model Results Page 130
300
J~ Prec1p.
. ,..""""
200
'E ~
.§.. 100 J- ~
w
0
z I
/ Lf
:3 0 .......... r---......._
<(
~ -100 ~~ ---- r- AT
--------.:r--.......
~
w
t- r--
AE - ~
;-200
w
>
i= -300 ~
'
:3:l
:! -400
:l
~ ~
~ PE
0 .........r----...__
-500 r-
-600
Figure B.2. Calculated water balance components for the D3 prototype cover.
300
200
J~
P rec1p.
. r -
'E
.§.. 100
_r - _r- -~
w
0 ~
z I
:3 0
' ~ --._
-
<(
~ -100 - - AE __
~
w -AT
t-
;-200
w
>
i= -300 ~
'
:3
~
:l
:! -400
:l - ~
0
-500
PE -
r----.......... r-·
-600
Figure B.3. Calculated water balance components for the BL prototype cover.
B.2 Matric Suction Responses
100000~---------------------------------------------.
SHALLOW PEAT - -Computed Values
5 em DEPTH
• Measured Values
1 +-----------~----------~------------~----------~
100000~----------------------------------------------.
DEEP PEAT-
I
10 em DEPTH
~ 10000~~------------------------------------------------~
"'
a..
Jill::
•.G;;;·;.q,·;•;.<,•;~•·•·
- 1000 -··'·''·''·'···········"····.·· ·. ··· •·;• ...;.·;•·w,,;•..··;,;?,y···
z •
0
i=
0
:l
tn 10 -
1 +-----------~----------~----------~----------~
1 rl l-
100000~----------------------------------------------.
~:::: 2~~~~E~~H ·~·--- ~~---~~- ~

I
•• ••
4-May-00 23-Jun-00 12-Aug-00 1-0ct-00 20-Nov-00
Figure B.4. Comparison of the matric suction measured by Boese (2003) and computed
matric suction responses at three depths in the D2 soil cover.
1000
100000T--------------------------------------------~
-
- l :
C'CS
Q.
~
: l ~ - ! - ~ _ ~ _ - _ D _ E P _ T _ H ~ ~ - - - - - . - - - ~ - . - r - - . ~ ~ - ~ - . l - - ~ - ~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ - - - ~ J
100000T--------------------------------------------~
PEAT/TILL MIX·
I
30 em Depth
10000~~~~~~~~~~~--~----~~~--------~--~
t "'_~
1
::: '.!!;:..-;.;;1111111111[•· "·· c::

...
1 +-~
4-May-00
---r--......-------r-------1
1-0ct-00 20-Nov-00
23-Jun-00 12-Aug-00
100000~----------------------------------------------,
SHALLOW -Computed Values
PEAT/TILL MIX· • Measured Values
10000 5 em DEPTH
100000~---------------------------------------------.
INTERMEDIATE
PEAT/TILL MIX·
- 10000 20 em DEPTH
ctS
-
D..
~
z
0
i=
0
:)
en
4-May-00 23-Jun-00 12-Aug-00 1-0ct-00 20-Nov-00
B.3 Soil Temperature Responses
20~-----------------------------------------------------,
SHALLOW PEAT- -Computed Values
Scm DEPTH
• Measured Values
20
DEEP PEAT-
-
10 em DEPTH
0 15
<a-
w
~
::l 10
1-
<C
~
w
D.. 5
::E
w •
1-
0
20
TILL-
25cm DEPTH
15
0+-------------~----------~------------~------------~
4-May-00 23-Jun-00 12-Aug-00 1-0ct-00 20-Nov-00
Figure B.7. Comparison of soil temperature response measured by Boese (2003) and
computed soil temperature responses at three depths within the D2 cover system.
20~~~~--------=--------w~----------------------------~
D3 PEAT-
• Measured Values
10
5 •
•
0
20
TILL-
-
20 em DEPTH
0 15
Q._.
w
0:::
::)
10
t-
<(
0:::
w
Q. 5
:E
w
t-
0
20
PEAT/TILL MIX -
30 em DEPTH
15
0+-------------~------------~------------~------------~
4-May-00 23-Jun-00 12-Aug-00 1-0ct-00 20-Nov-00
computed soil temperature responses at three depths within the D3 cover system.
20~------------------------------------------------------~
SHALLOW
PEAT/TILL MIX· -Computed Values
Scm DEPTH • Measured Values
0 •
20
INTERMEDIATE
-
PEAT/TILL MIX·
20 em DEPTH
0 15
~
w
c:::
::;) 10
1-
<C
c:::
w
Q. 5
:E
w
1-
0
20
DEEP
PEAT/TILL MIX·
70 em DEPTH
15
•
OT-------------~------------~------------~------------~
4-May-00 23-Jun-00 12-Aug-00 1-0ct-00 20-Nov-oo
computed soil temperature responses at three depths within the BL cover system.
ADDENDUM
ERRATA
Page# Figure Change
37 4.2 van Genuchten-fitted to in situ data only (R:t=2.37) should read:
van Genuchten-fitted to in situ data only (R2=0.80)
37 4.2 Fredlund and Xing-fitted to in situ data only (R:t=2.47) should read:
Fredlund and Xing-fitted to in situ data only (R2=0.79)
37 4.2 van Genuchten-fitted to porosity and in situ data (R2=1.67) should read: van
Genuchten-fitted to porosity and in situ data (R2=0.60)
37 4.2 Fredlund and Xing-fitted to porosity and in situ data (R:t=1.26) should read: Fredlund
and Xing-fitted to in situ data only (R2=0.65)
37 4.3 Multi (3) Fredlund and Xing (R:t=2.41) should read:
Multi (3) Fredlund and Xing (R2=0.80)
39 4.4 R:t = 2.47 should read: R"' = 0.35
61 5.13 R:t= 0.71 should read: R:t = 0.84
64 5.16 R:t= 0.91 should read: R:t = 0.59
66 5.18 R"' = 2.44 should read: R"' = -1.26
71 5.22 R :t = 1.21 should read: R 2 = -0.44
83 6.1 2000 R:t = 2.47; 2001 R:t = 2.62 should read: 2000 R:t = -0.93; 2001 R:t = -0.93
85 6.3 Computed R"'= 5.91 should read: Computed R"'= -3.36
85 6.3 Green Foxtail R 2 = 27.5 should read: Green Foxtail R:t= -25.3
85 6.3 No Vegetation R:t= 0.55 should read: No Vegetation R 2 = 0.46
89 6.6 Computed R:t = 0.98 should read: Computed R:t = 0.33
89 6.6 Green Foxtail R:t = 1.12 should read: Green Foxtail R:t = 0.03
89 6.6 No Vegetation R:t= 2.19 should read: No Vegetation R:t= -1.70
89 6.6 Sweetclovers R:t = 0.99 should read: Sweetclovers R"' = -0.13
91 6.8 Computed R"'= 0.84 should read: Computed R 2 = 0.73
91 6.8 Green Foxtail R 2 = 7.57 should read: Green Foxtail R:t = -4.96
91 6.8 No Vegetation R:t= 0.98 should read: No Vegetation R:t= -0.38
92 6.9 R2 = 1.06 should read: R"'= -0.52
120 A .I R:t = 0.59 should read: R:t = 0.43
121 A.2 R"'= 1.55 should read: R"'= -0.16
121 A.3 R:t= 0.11 should read: R 2 = -0.18
122 A.4 R:t= 0.71 should read: R:t= -0.26
122 A.5 R"'= 0.31 should read: R"'= 0.30
123 A.6 R:t= 1.89 should read: R 2 = -0.44
123 A.7 R:t= 0.92 should read: R:t= 0.32
124 A.8 R"'= 1.33 should read: R"'= 0.22
124 A.9 R 2 = 1.03 should read: R"'= -0.06
125 A.10 R:t = 0.53 should read: R2 = 0.25
125 A.11 2000 R:t = 2.47; 2001 R:t = 2.62 should read:
2000 R 2 = -0.93; 2001 R 2 = -0.93
126 A.12 2000 R 2 = 1.01; 2001 R"' = 1.01 should read:
2000 R 2 = -0.25; 2001 R2 = -0.25
126 A.13 2000 R:t = 0.77; 2001 R 2 = 0.90 should read:
2000 R 2 = 0.23; 2001 R2 = 0.06
127 A.14 2000 R:t = 4.95; 2001 R2 = 6.43 should read:
2000 R 2 = -3.33; 2001 R 2 = -2.17
2000 R 2 = -1.46; 2001 R2 = -1.46
2000 R2 = 0.08; 2001 R 2 = 0.08
2000 R 2 = -0.29; 2001 R 2 = -0.29

Shurniak Robert Edward 2003 Sec PDF

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Shurniak Robert Edward 2003 Sec PDF

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Predictive Modeling of Moisture Movement

within Soil Cover Systems for

A Thesis Submitted to the College of Graduate Studies and Research in Partial

© Copyright Robert Edward Shurniak, January 2003. All rights reserved.

Head of the Department of Civil Engineering,

LIST OF TABLES V111

LIST OF FIGURES 1X.

Chapter One: INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 Description of the Problem 2

1.4 Methodology for this Thesis 7

1.5 Overview of Chapters 9

Chapter Two: SITE BACKGROUND 10

2.1 Cover Details 10

Chapter Three: THEORETICAL BACKGROUND 20

3.1 Heat and Mass Transfer Equations 21

Chapter Four: KEY PARAMETERS 34

4.1 Soil-Water Characteristic Curve 34

Chapter Five: FIELD RESPONSE MODELING 43

5.1 Model Details 43

5.1.2 Cover Stratigraphy 44

5.1.3 Boundary Conditions 46

5.1.3.1 Surface Boundary Conditions 46

5.1.5.3 Thermal Properties 51

5.2.1 Water Balance Components 52

5.2.4.1 D 1 Cover System 58

5.2.4.2 D2 Cover System 61

5.2.4.3 D3 Cover System 64

5.2.4.4 BL Cover System 68

5.3 Summary and Evaluation of Field Response Modeling 71

Chapter Six: PREDICTIVE MODELING 78

6.1 Application of Models to 2001 Data 78

6.3 Predictive Modeling 95

Chapter Seven: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 107

7.1 Evaluation of Predictive Capabilities 107

Appendix A: SWCC and HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY FUNCTIONS 120

1.1 Description of the Problem

1.2 Description of the Study Area and Research

Figure 1.2. Cross-section of field instrumentation (after Boese, 2003).

1.3 Study Objectives

1. Detailed field monitoring and characterization of the performance of the soil

The objectives of the South Hills research program are to:

1. Evaluate the long-term performance and effectiveness of soil covers for

1.4 Methodology for this Thesis

Figure 1.3. Flowchart of the modeling methodology.

6. Analysis ofResults: The modeled results were analyzed in order to make

1.5 Overview of Chapters

The following section provides an overview of each chapter of this thesis.

Chapter 2 gives a detailed description of the site background. Information on the

2.1 Cover Details

• D1- 20 em of peat overlying 30 em of till secondary covering the shale

Figure 2.1. View of the prototype cover site as looking northeast.

Figure 2.2. Three-dimensional contour map of the prototype cover site

c 25 .-------r--r----..----,-------,.--.,.----1 c:::=:JWood Bison Hills : Net (1999)

-o- -->r-, ;:L-

.... t!:!1!.lll Fort McMurray (1953-1994)

The average monthly wind-speeds measured at Fort McMurray (1959-1994), Mildred

()1 ()1 ()'1

Data Acqu Solar Powered

Figure 2.7. Layout of a soil station (after Boese, 2003).

Wilson (1990) developed the original formulation of the soil-atmosphere model as an

3.1 Heat and Mass Transfer Equations

8hw =c 1 ~(k 8hw)+c 2 ~(D 8Pv)+S [3.1]

c~ =coefficient of water storage with respect to the liquid phase