Skip to main content
Engineering LibreTexts

2.12: Example 2.1

  • Page ID
    123390
  • \( \newcommand{\vecs}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } \)

    \( \newcommand{\vecd}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash {#1}}} \)

    \( \newcommand{\dsum}{\displaystyle\sum\limits} \)

    \( \newcommand{\dint}{\displaystyle\int\limits} \)

    \( \newcommand{\dlim}{\displaystyle\lim\limits} \)

    \( \newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\)

    ( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\)

    \( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\) \( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\)

    \( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\) \( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\)

    \( \newcommand{\inner}[2]{\langle #1, #2 \rangle}\)

    \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\)

    \( \newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\)

    \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\)

    \( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\)

    \( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\)

    \( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\)

    \( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\)

    \( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\)

    \( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\)

    \( \newcommand{\inner}[2]{\langle #1, #2 \rangle}\)

    \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\) \( \newcommand{\AA}{\unicode[.8,0]{x212B}}\)

    \( \newcommand{\vectorA}[1]{\vec{#1}}      % arrow\)

    \( \newcommand{\vectorAt}[1]{\vec{\text{#1}}}      % arrow\)

    \( \newcommand{\vectorB}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } \)

    \( \newcommand{\vectorC}[1]{\textbf{#1}} \)

    \( \newcommand{\vectorD}[1]{\overrightarrow{#1}} \)

    \( \newcommand{\vectorDt}[1]{\overrightarrow{\text{#1}}} \)

    \( \newcommand{\vectE}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash{\mathbf {#1}}}} \)

    \( \newcommand{\vecs}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } \)

    \(\newcommand{\longvect}{\overrightarrow}\)

    \( \newcommand{\vecd}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash {#1}}} \)

    \(\newcommand{\avec}{\mathbf a}\) \(\newcommand{\bvec}{\mathbf b}\) \(\newcommand{\cvec}{\mathbf c}\) \(\newcommand{\dvec}{\mathbf d}\) \(\newcommand{\dtil}{\widetilde{\mathbf d}}\) \(\newcommand{\evec}{\mathbf e}\) \(\newcommand{\fvec}{\mathbf f}\) \(\newcommand{\nvec}{\mathbf n}\) \(\newcommand{\pvec}{\mathbf p}\) \(\newcommand{\qvec}{\mathbf q}\) \(\newcommand{\svec}{\mathbf s}\) \(\newcommand{\tvec}{\mathbf t}\) \(\newcommand{\uvec}{\mathbf u}\) \(\newcommand{\vvec}{\mathbf v}\) \(\newcommand{\wvec}{\mathbf w}\) \(\newcommand{\xvec}{\mathbf x}\) \(\newcommand{\yvec}{\mathbf y}\) \(\newcommand{\zvec}{\mathbf z}\) \(\newcommand{\rvec}{\mathbf r}\) \(\newcommand{\mvec}{\mathbf m}\) \(\newcommand{\zerovec}{\mathbf 0}\) \(\newcommand{\onevec}{\mathbf 1}\) \(\newcommand{\real}{\mathbb R}\) \(\newcommand{\twovec}[2]{\left[\begin{array}{r}#1 \\ #2 \end{array}\right]}\) \(\newcommand{\ctwovec}[2]{\left[\begin{array}{c}#1 \\ #2 \end{array}\right]}\) \(\newcommand{\threevec}[3]{\left[\begin{array}{r}#1 \\ #2 \\ #3 \end{array}\right]}\) \(\newcommand{\cthreevec}[3]{\left[\begin{array}{c}#1 \\ #2 \\ #3 \end{array}\right]}\) \(\newcommand{\fourvec}[4]{\left[\begin{array}{r}#1 \\ #2 \\ #3 \\ #4 \end{array}\right]}\) \(\newcommand{\cfourvec}[4]{\left[\begin{array}{c}#1 \\ #2 \\ #3 \\ #4 \end{array}\right]}\) \(\newcommand{\fivevec}[5]{\left[\begin{array}{r}#1 \\ #2 \\ #3 \\ #4 \\ #5 \\ \end{array}\right]}\) \(\newcommand{\cfivevec}[5]{\left[\begin{array}{c}#1 \\ #2 \\ #3 \\ #4 \\ #5 \\ \end{array}\right]}\) \(\newcommand{\mattwo}[4]{\left[\begin{array}{rr}#1 \amp #2 \\ #3 \amp #4 \\ \end{array}\right]}\) \(\newcommand{\laspan}[1]{\text{Span}\{#1\}}\) \(\newcommand{\bcal}{\cal B}\) \(\newcommand{\ccal}{\cal C}\) \(\newcommand{\scal}{\cal S}\) \(\newcommand{\wcal}{\cal W}\) \(\newcommand{\ecal}{\cal E}\) \(\newcommand{\coords}[2]{\left\{#1\right\}_{#2}}\) \(\newcommand{\gray}[1]{\color{gray}{#1}}\) \(\newcommand{\lgray}[1]{\color{lightgray}{#1}}\) \(\newcommand{\rank}{\operatorname{rank}}\) \(\newcommand{\row}{\text{Row}}\) \(\newcommand{\col}{\text{Col}}\) \(\renewcommand{\row}{\text{Row}}\) \(\newcommand{\nul}{\text{Nul}}\) \(\newcommand{\var}{\text{Var}}\) \(\newcommand{\corr}{\text{corr}}\) \(\newcommand{\len}[1]{\left|#1\right|}\) \(\newcommand{\bbar}{\overline{\bvec}}\) \(\newcommand{\bhat}{\widehat{\bvec}}\) \(\newcommand{\bperp}{\bvec^\perp}\) \(\newcommand{\xhat}{\widehat{\xvec}}\) \(\newcommand{\vhat}{\widehat{\vvec}}\) \(\newcommand{\uhat}{\widehat{\uvec}}\) \(\newcommand{\what}{\widehat{\wvec}}\) \(\newcommand{\Sighat}{\widehat{\Sigma}}\) \(\newcommand{\lt}{<}\) \(\newcommand{\gt}{>}\) \(\newcommand{\amp}{&}\) \(\definecolor{fillinmathshade}{gray}{0.9}\)

    Selection of remediation method on the basis of comparative analysis

    Establishment of various industries on the banks of a hypothetical river resulted in contamination of its waters and sediments. Analysis of sediments revealed that the concentration of heavy metals (lead, zinc, cooper) has exceeded by far the threshold concentrations indicating harmful effects. Samples retrieved from the riverbank indicate that the average thickness of the contamination sediment is 250 mm, and the total contaminated sediment volume is about 150,000 m3.

    Select the most effective remediation method, considering (permanent and temporary) environmental, technical and economic criteria.

    Answer:

    Five (5) remediation alternatives are tentatively selected for the comparative analysis (Mohamed and Antia 1998). These consist of (in order of increasing cost):

    1. Storage of sediments on land

    Dredge sediments, reduce their volume (via dehydration), transport them and store them in a waste depository.

    Estimated Cost: $5 mil

    2. On-site storage of sediments on the riverbed

    Cover the sediments with a permeable geotextile, and compact them by overlaying a bed of crushed stones.

    Estimated Cost: $6 mil

    3. Encapsulation of sediments within the river area

    Dredge sediments by means of suction flow-reversing, transport them via pipelines, and store them in watertight basins constructed within the river. This option will reduce the width of the river, but to acceptable levels.

    Estimated Cost: $10 mil

    4. Off-site stabilization of sediments

    Dredge sediments and treat them with chemical agents to form a cement-like product. Use the material in landfills or for general embankment construction.

    Estimated Cost: $6 mil to $12 mil

    5. On-site stabilization of sediments

    Mix the sediments directly with chemical agents and cement to create a highly resistant material of low permeability. Treated material can be left in place.

    Estimated Cost: $12 mil to $24 mil

    Each family of criteria (permanent environmental, temporary environmental and technical/economical) is divided into specific criteria/aims, and each remediation option is rated according to that criterion (1st, 2nd, 3rd etc.), in the order of most desirable to least desirable solution.

    At the same time, each one of the criteria is assigned to an importance class IC, according to the project specifications, stakeholders feedback, risks etc. Three (3) importance classes are used in this example. In this way, ratings are weighted according to Table 2.2 in a five-level mark scale. Higher marks correspond to the most desirable option: A is the highest mark and E is the lowest. Tables 2.3 to 2.5 present the criteria, divided into three families, their ratings, and the importance class they are assigned to.

    Table 2.2. Weighting of criteria according to the importance class.
    Importance Class, IC Weight of criterion
    Rated 1st Rated 2nd Rated 3rd
    1 A B C
    2 B C D
    3 C D E
    Table 2.3. Permanent environmental family of criteria
    Criterion Options Rating IC
    Eliminate the contamination of the river sediment Complete treatment and elimination of pollutants 1st 2
    Confinement of pollutants 2nd
    Sediment management in the affected area Sediments remain in the affected area 1st 1
    Part or all sediments transported outside affected area 2nd
    Preserve site conditions No changes in the river layout 1st 3
    Changes in the river layout 2nd
    Minimise risk of polluting groundwater and surface water after treatment No risk; contaminants transported outside affected area 1st 2
    Low risk; contaminants fully confined in the affected area 2nd
    Moderate risk; contaminants partially confined in the affected area 3rd
    Riverbed characteristics following the completion of work Riverbed similar to natural state 1st 3
    Riverbed composed of small stones (added material) 2nd
    Cemented material covering the riverbed 3rd

    Twelve (12) criteria in total are considered in this example. Other, project-specific criteria may apply e.g. impact of works on industrial activity or local economy, potential for area redevelopment, timetable issues etc.

    The ratings of the criteria are also project-dependent. For example in this case emphasis is put on criteria related to inconvenience of the local residents during works (IC1), compared to temporary environmental impact (IC3, Table 2.4), to minimise community reaction to the project.

    Results are summarised in Table 2.6, where the marks scored by each remediation solution are reported, according to its technical details in the light of the offered options. The solution that scores more A- marks (encapsulation is this case) is the preferred one. If two or more alternatives have the same number of A- marks, we count the B- marks etc. Therefore the second most preferable option in this case is storage of sediments on land, followed by on-site stabilisation.

    Table 2.4. Temporary environmental family of criteria.
    Criterion Options Rating IC
    Inconvenience caused by construction site Majority of works taking place outside affected area; minimal installations; works completed within 12 months 1st 1
    Majority of works taking place in affected area; installations and storage on site; works completed within 12 months 2nd
    Majority of works taking place in affected area; installations and storage on site; works completed in more than 12 months 3rd
    Inconvenience due to trucking activity Minimal trucking activity 1st 1
    Heavy trucking activity 2nd
    Very heavy trucking activity 3rd
    Environmental impact of works Little or no drop in river water; minimal dredging 1st 3
    Little or no drop in river water; dredging 2nd
    Major drop in river water 3rd
    Table 2.5. Technical/Economical family of criteria.
    Criterion Options Rating IC
    Effect of works on river functions River section similar to original state 1st 2
    River section similar to original state, alteration of banks outline 2nd
    Characteristics of river section altered 3rd
    Past experience and feasibility Proven technology for similar treatment 1st 1
    Proven technology, but for a different treatment 2nd
    Technology not proven in practice (pilot or pre-industrial stage) 3rd
    Necessity for monitoring No follow up required; pollutants removed from the area 1st 2
    Small-scale monitoring required 2nd
    Large-scale monitoring required 3rd
    Total cost $10mil or less 1st 1
      $10 to 30mil 2nd
      over $30mil 3rd
    Table 2.6. Ranking of alternative remediation solutions.
    Mark Storage on land On-site storage Encapsulation Off-site stabilization On-site stabilization
    A 2 2 3 2 2
    B 5 2 1 3 4
    C 4 4 6 3 5
    D 1 3 1 3 1
    E 0 1 1 1 0
    Ranking 2nd 5th 1st 4th 3rd

    This page titled 2.12: Example 2.1 was last modified on Sun, 03 Aug 2025 17:37:03 GMT and is shared under a CC BY 4.0 license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated by George Kouretzis (Council of Australian University Librarians Initiative) via source content that was edited to the style and standards of the LibreTexts platform.