`Mathematical Problems in EngineeringVolume 2012, Article ID 986867, 13 pageshttp://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2012/986867`
Research Article

## A Fuzzy Simulation-Based Optimization Approach for Groundwater Remediation Design at Contaminated Aquifers

1MOE Key Laboratory of Regional Energy Systems Optimization, S&C Academy of Resource and Environmental Research, North China Electric Power University, Beijing 102206, China
2Faculty of Engineering and Applied Science, University of Regina, Regina, SK, Canada S4S 0A2
3Bureau of Economic Geology, Jackson School of Geosciences, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX 78713, USA

Received 22 July 2011; Accepted 17 November 2011

Copyright © 2012 A. L. Yang et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

1. Z. Chen, G. H. Huang, and A. Chakma, “Numerical modeling soil and groundwater contamination—a study for petroleum-contaminated site,” Tech. Rep., TransGas-SaskEnergy, Regina, Canada, 1998.
2. L. He, G. H. Huang, and H. W. Lu, “A stochastic optimization model under modeling uncertainty and parameter certainty for groundwater remediation design-Part I. Model development,” Journal of Hazardous Materials, vol. 176, no. 1–3, pp. 521–526, 2010.
3. A. S. Mayer, C. T. Kelley, and C. T. Miller, “Optimal design for problems involving flow and transport phenomena in saturated subsurface systems,” Advances in Water Resources, vol. 25, no. 8–12, pp. 1233–1256, 2002.
4. D. A. Baú and A. S. Mayer, “Stochastic management of pump-and-treat strategies using surrogate functions,” Advances in Water Resources, vol. 29, no. 12, pp. 1901–1917, 2006.
5. X. S. Qin, “Assessing environmental risks through fuzzy parameterized probabilistic analysis,” Stochastic Environmental Research and Risk Assessment, vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 43–58, 2011.
6. A. L. Ahmad, S. Ismail, and S. Bhatia, “Optimization of coagulation-flocculation process for palm oil mill effluent using response surface methodology,” Environmental Science and Technology, vol. 39, no. 8, pp. 2828–2834, 2005.
7. Y. F. Huang, G. H. Huang, G. Q. Wang, Q. G. Lin, and A. Chakma, “An integrated numerical and physical modeling system for an enhanced in situ bioremediation process,” Environmental Pollution, vol. 144, no. 3, pp. 872–885, 2006.
8. L. He, G. H. Huang, H. W. Lu, and G. M. Zeng, “Optimization of surfactant-enhanced aquifer remediation for a laboratory BTEX system under parameter uncertainty,” Environmental Science and Technology, vol. 42, no. 6, pp. 2009–2014, 2008.
9. H. Stroo, H. C. Ward, and B. C. Alleman, In Situ Remediation of Chlorinated Solvent Plumes, Springer Sciences and Business Media, New York, NY, USA, 2010.
10. H. J. Shieh and R. C. Peralta, “Optimal in situ bioremediation design by hybrid genetic algorithm-simulated annealing,” Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management, vol. 131, no. 1, pp. 67–78, 2005.
11. Y. F. Huang, Development of environmental modeling methodologies for supporting system simulation, optimization and process control in petroleum waste management, Ph.D. thesis, University of Regina, Regina, Canada, 2004.
12. G. H. Huang, J. B. Li, and I. Maqsood, Numerical Simulation, Risk Assessment, Site Remediation, and Monitoring Design—A Study of Soil and Groundwater Contamination at the Cantuar Field Scrubber Site Prepared for Environmental Affairs, TransGas-SaskEnergy, 2003.
13. S. Yan and B. Minsker, “Optimal groundwater remediation design using an Adaptive Neural Network Genetic Algorithm,” Water Resources Research, vol. 42, no. 5, Article ID W05407, 14 pages, 2006.
14. L. He, G. H. Huang, G. M. Zeng, and H. W. Lu, “An integrated simulation, inference, and optimization method for identifying groundwater remediation strategies at petroleum-contaminated aquifers in western Canada,” Water Research, vol. 42, no. 10-11, pp. 2629–2639, 2008.
15. X. S. Qin and Y. Xu, “Analyzing urban water supply through an acceptability-index-based interval approach,” Advances in Water Resources, vol. 34, no. 7, pp. 873–886, 2011.
16. D. A. Baú and A. S. Mayer, “Stochastic management of pump-and-treat strategies using surrogate functions,” Advances in Water Resources, vol. 29, no. 12, pp. 1901–1917, 2006.
17. A. Mantoglou and G. Kourakos, “Optimal groundwater remediation under uncertainty using multi-objective optimization,” Water Resources Management, vol. 21, no. 5, pp. 835–847, 2007.
18. Y. Xu and X. S. Qin, “Agricultural effluent control under uncertainty: an inexact double-sided fuzzy chance-constrained model,” Advances in Water Resources, vol. 33, no. 9, pp. 997–1014, 2010.
19. S. Yan and B. Minsker, “Applying dynamic surrogate models in noisy genetic algorithms to optimize groundwater remediation designs,” Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management, vol. 137, no. 3, pp. 284–292, 2011.
20. G. H. Huang and N. B. Chang, “The perspectives of environmental informatics and systems analysis,” Journal of Environmental Informatics, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 1–7, 2003.
21. J. Guan and M. M. Aral, “Optimal design of groundwater remediation systems using fuzzy set theory,” Water Resources Research, vol. 40, no. 1, Article ID W01518, 20 pages, 2004.
22. F. Nasiri, G. Huang, and N. Fuller, “Prioritizing groundwater remediation policies: a fuzzy compatibility analysis decision aid,” Journal of Environmental Management, vol. 82, no. 1, pp. 13–23, 2007.
23. R. Kerachian, M. Fallahnia, M. R. Bazargan-Lari, A. Mansoori, and H. Sedghi, “A fuzzy game theoretic approach for groundwater resources management: application of Rubinstein Bargaining Theory,” Resources, Conservation and Recycling, vol. 54, no. 10, pp. 673–682, 2010.
24. R. K. Prasad and S. Mathur, “Health-risk-based remedial alternatives for contaminated aquifer management,” Practice Periodical of Hazardous, Toxic, and Radioactive Waste Management, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 61–69, 2010.
25. M. P. Suarez and H. S. Rifai, “Modeling natural attenuation of total BTEX and benzene plumes with different kinetics,” Ground Water Monitoring and Remediation, vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 53–68, 2004.
26. H. S. Rifai, C. J. Newell, J. R. Gonzales, S. Dendrou, L. Kennedy, and J.T. Wilson, BIOPLUME III Natural Attenuation Decision Support System, Version 1.0 User’s Manual, Air Force Center for Environmental Excellence (AFCEE), San Antonio, Tex, USA, 1997.
27. R. C. Borden and P. B. Bedient, “Transport of dissolved hydrocarbons influenced by oxygen-limited biodegradation: 1. Theoretical development,” Water Resources Research, vol. 22, no. 13, pp. 1973–1982, 1986.
28. X. Qin, Y. Xu, and J. Su, “Municipal solid waste-flow allocation planning with trapezoidal-shaped fuzzy parameters,” Environmental Engineering Science, vol. 28, no. 8, pp. 573–584, 2011.
29. B. D. Xi, X. S. Qin, X. K. Su, Y. H. Jiang, and Z. M. Wei, “Characterizing effects of uncertainties in MSW composting process through a coupled fuzzy vertex and factorial-analysis approach,” Waste Management, vol. 28, no. 9, pp. 1609–1623, 2008.
30. P. Fortemps and M. Roubens, “Ranking and defuzzification methods based on area compensation,” Fuzzy Sets and Systems, vol. 82, no. 3, pp. 319–330, 1996.
31. B. S. Minsker and C. A. Shoemaker, “Dynamic optimal control of in-situ bioremediation of ground water,” Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management, vol. 124, no. 3, pp. 149–161, 1998.
32. SERM (Saskatchewan Environment and Resource Management), Risk Based Corrective Actions for Petroleum Contaminated Sites, Province of Saskatchewan, Regina, Canada, 1999.
33. C. S. Sawyer and M. Kamakoti, “Optimal flow rates and well locations for soil vapor extraction design,” Journal of Contaminant Hydrology, vol. 32, no. 1-2, pp. 63–76, 1998.
34. B. Liu and Y.-K. Liu, “Expected value of fuzzy variable and fuzzy expected value models,” IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems, vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 445–450, 2002.
35. L. G. Shao, X. S. Qin, and Y. Xu, “A conditional value-at-risk based inexact water allocation model,” Water Resources Management, vol. 25, no. 9, pp. 2125–2145, 2011.