Groundwater Simulations and Uncertainty Analysis Using MODFLOW and Geostatistical Approach with Conditioning Multi-Aquifer Spatial Covariance
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Study Area
2.2. Spatial Correlations
2.3. Geostatistical Simulation
2.4. Modular Groundwater Flow Model
2.5. Generalised Likelihood Uncertainty Estimation (GLUE)
3. Results
3.1. Semivariogram and Cross-Semivariogram Analyses
3.2. Conditional Geostatistical Simulations
3.3. Comparison of Simulated Heads Derived from Spatial Distributions of Ln(K) of Kriged Estimate and of the Selected Top Three Sets of Realizations
3.4. Uncertainty Analysis of Spatial Distributions of ln(K) in Multiple Aquifers
4. Discussion
4.1. Semivariogram and Cross-Semivariogram Analyses
4.2. Conditional Geostatistical Simulations
4.3. Assessment of Ranking Realizations and Uncertainty of Groundwater Modeling
5. Conclusions
Acknowledgments
Author Contributions
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Mahmud, K.; Mariethoz, G.; Baker, A.; Sharma, A. Integrating multiple scales of hydraulic conductivity measurements in training image-based stochastic models. Water Resour. Res. 2015, 51, 465–480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lin, Y.P.; Tan, Y.C.; Rouhani, S. Identifying spatial characteristics of transmissivity using simulated annealing and kriging methods. Environ. Geol. 2001, 41, 200–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, S.Y.; Carle, S.F.; Fogg, G.E. Geologic heterogeneity and a comparison of two geostatistical models: Sequential gaussian and transition probability-based geostatistical simulation. Adv. Water Resour. 2007, 30, 1914–1932. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Simo, A.T.G.; Marache, A.; Lastennet, R.; Breysse, D. Reconstructing hydraulic conductivity field for hydrogeological modeling in an urban environment. Eng. Geol. 2013, 158, 119–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ko, N.Y.; Ji, S.H.; Koh, Y.K.; Choi, J.W. Evaluation of two conceptual approaches for groundwater flow simulation for a rock domain at the block-scale for the Olkiluoto site, Finland. Eng. Geol. 2015, 193, 297–304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kupfersberger, H.; Deutsch, C.V. Ranking stochastic realizations for improved aquifer response uncertainty assessment. J. Hydrol. 1999, 223, 54–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gómez-Hernónez, J.J.; Sahuquillo, A.; Capilla, J. Stochastic simulation of transmissivity fields conditional to both transmissivity and piezometric data-I. Theory J. Hydrol. 1997, 203, 162–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kitanidis, P.K. Groundwater flow in heterogeneous formations, In Subsurface Flow and Transport: The Stochastic Approach; Dagan, G., Neuman, S.P., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1997; pp. 83–91. [Google Scholar]
- Coppola, E.A.; Rana, A.J.; Poulton, M.M.; Szidarovszky, F.; Uhl, V.W. A neural network model for predicting aquifer water level elevations. Ground Water 2005, 43, 231–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bianchi, M.; Kearsey, T.; Kingdon, A. Integrating deterministic lithostratigraphic models in stochastic realizations of subsurface heterogeneity. Impact on predictions of lithology, hydraulic heads and groundwater fluxes. J. Hydrol. 2015, 531, 557–573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Blouin, M.; Martel, R.; Gloaguen, E. Accounting for aquifer heterogeneity from geological data to management tools. Groundwater 2013, 51, 421–431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Gómez-Hernónez, J.J.; Wen, X.H. To be or not to be multi-Gaussian? A reflection on stochastic hydrogeology. Adv. Water Resour. 1998, 21, 47–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Deutsch, C.V.; Journel, A.G. Geostatistical Software Library and User’s Guide; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 1992. [Google Scholar]
- Jones, N.L.; Walker, J.R.; Garle, S.F. Hydrogeologic unit flow characterization using Transition probability geostatistics. Ground Water 2005, 42, 285–289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- McKenna, S.A.; Doherty, J.; Hart, D.B. Non-uniqueness of inverse transmissivity field calibration and predictive transport modeling. J. Hydrol. 2003, 281, 265–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Journel, A.G.; Huijbregts, C.J. Mining Geostatistics; Academic Press: New York, NY, USA, 1978. [Google Scholar]
- Xu, C.G.; He, H.S.; Hu, Y.M.; Chang, Y.; Li, X.Z.; Bu, R.C. Latin hypercube sampling and geostatistical modeling of spatial uncertainty in a spatially explicit forest landscape model simulation. Ecol. Model. 2005, 185, 255–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pardo-Iguzquiza, E.; Chica-Olmo, M. Geostatistics with the Matern semivariogram model: A library of computer programs for inference, kriging and simulation. Comput. Geosci. 2008, 34, 1073–1079. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Goovaerts, P. Stochastic simulation of categorical variables using a classification algorithm and simulated annealing. Math. Geol. 1996, 28, 909–921. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Goovaerts, P. Impact of the simulation algorithm, magnitude of ergodic fluctuations and number of realizations on the spaces of uncertainty of flow properties. Stoch. Env. Res. Risk A 1999, 13, 161–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Metropolis, N.; Rosenbluth, A.W.; Rosenbluth, M.N.; Teller, A.H.; Teller, E. Equations of state calculations by fast computing machines. J. Chem. Phys. 1953, 21, 1087–1092. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hastings, W.K. Monte Carlo sampling methods using Markov Chain and their applications. Biometrika 1970, 57, 97–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Caers, J. Automatic histogram and variogram reproduction in simulated annealing simulation. Math. Geol. 2001, 33, 167–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Warner, J.W.; Tamayo-Lara, C.; Khazaei, E.; Manghi, F. Stochastic mangemetn modeling of a pump and treat system at the Rocky Mountain Arsenal near Denver, Colorado. J. Hydrol. 2006, 328, 523–537. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Goovaerts, P. Accounting for estimation optimality criteria in simulated annealing. Math. Geol. 1998, 30, 511–534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Beven, K.; Binley, A. The future of distributed models: Model calibration and uncertainty prediction. Hydrol. Process. 1992, 6, 279–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hassan, A.E.; Bekhit, H.M.; Chapman, J.B. Uncertainty assessment of a stochastic groundwater flow model using GLUE analysis. J. Hydrol. 2008, 362, 89–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huang, C.W.; Lin, Y.P.; Chiang, L.C.; Wang, Y.C. Using CV-GLUE procedure in analysis of wetland model predictive uncertainty. J. Environ. Manag. 2014, 140, 83–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Chu, H.J.; Lin, Y.P.; Huang, C.W.; Hsu, C.Y.; Chen, H.Y. Modelling the hydrologic effects of dynamic land-use change using a distributed hydrologic model and a spatial land-use allocation model. Hydrol. Process. 2010, 24, 2538–2554. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Beven, K.; Freer, J. Equifinality, data assimilation, and uncertainty estimation in mechanistic modelling of complex environmental systems using the GLUE methodology. J. Hydrol. 2001, 249, 11–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mirzaei, M.; Huang, Y.F.; El-Shafie, A.; Shatirah, A. Application of the generalized likelihood uncertainty estimation (GLUE) approach for assessing uncertainty in hydrological models: A review. Stoch. Env. Res. Risk A 2015, 29, 1265–1273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jackson, C.R.; Wang, L.; Pachocka, M.; Mackay, J.D.; Bloomfield, J.P. Reconstruction of multi-decadal groundwater level time-series using a lumped conceptual model. Hydrol. Process. 2016, 30, 3107–3125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marchant, B.; Mackay, J.; Bloomfield, J. Quantifying uncertainty in predictions of groundwater levels using formal likelihood methods. J. Hydrol. 2016, 540, 699–711. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, Y.C.; Lin, Y.P.; Huang, C.W.; Chiang, L.C.; Chu, H.J.; Ou, W.S. A system dynamic model and sensitivity analysis for simulating domestic pollution removal in a free-water surface constructed wetland. Water Air Soil Poll. 2012, 223, 2719–2742. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gamma Design Software. Geostatistics for the Environmental Sciences GS+, version 7.0; Gamma Design Software: Plainwell, MI, USA, 2004.
- Chang, L.C.; Liu, C.W. Assessment and Management of Regional Groundwater Resources; Water Resources Agency, Ministry of Economic Affairs: Taipei, Taiwan, 2002.
- McDonald, M.G.; Harbaugh, A.W. A Modular Three-Dimensional Finite-Difference Ground-Water Flow Model: U.S. Geological Survey Open-FIle Report 83-875; USGS Survey: Reston, VA, USA, 1984.
- McDonald, M.G.; Harbaugh, A.W. A Modular Three-Dimensional Finite Difference Ground-Water Flow Model; U.S. Geological Survey: Reston, VA, USA, 1988.
- Harbaugh, A.W.; Banta, E.R.; Hill, M.C.; McDonald, G.M. MODFLOW-2000, the U.S. Geological Survey Modular Ground-Water Model-User Guide to Modularization Concepts and the Ground-Water Flow Process; U.S. Geological Survey: Reston, VA, USA, 2000.
- Nash, J.E.; Sutcliffe, J.V. River flow forecasting through conceptual models part I–A discussion of principles. J. Hydrol. 1970, 10, 282–290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Henderson, D.; Jacobson, S.H.; Johnson, A.W. The Theory and Practice of Simulated Annealing. In Handbook of Metaheuristics; Glover, F., Gary, A., Kochenberger, A., Eds.; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2003; pp. 287–319. [Google Scholar]
- Ritter, A.; Muñoz-Carpena, R. Performance evaluation of hydrological models: Statistical significance for reducing subjectivity in goodness-of-fit assessments. J. Hydrol. 2013, 480, 33–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bailey, R.T.; Baù, D. Estimating geostatistical parameters and spatially-variable hydraulic conductivity within a catchment system using an ensemble smoother. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 2012, 16, 287–304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Nilsson, B.; Højberg, A.L.; Refsgaard, J.C.; Troldborg, L. Uncertainty in geological and hydrogeological data. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 2006, 3, 2675–2706. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sampler, F.J. Application of geostatistics in subsurface hydrology. In Subsurface Flow and Transport: A Stochastic Approach; Dagan, G., Neuman, S.P., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1997; pp. 44–61. [Google Scholar]
- Wu, J.; Zeng, X. Review of the uncertainty analysis of groundwater numerical simulation. Chin. Sci. Bull. 2013, 58, 3044–3052. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Aquifers | Model | Nugget (C) | Sill (S) | Range (a) | RSS | R2 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Aquifer 1 | Spherical | 0.990 | 3.370 | 32110.0 | 1.73 | 0.74 |
Aquifer 2 | Spherical | 0.350 | 1.440 | 32130.0 | 0.85 | 0.54 |
Aquifer 3 | Spherical | 0.390 | 1.630 | 10282.0 | 6.15 | 0.54 |
Aquifers 1–2 | Gaussian | 0.001 | 0.392 | 5850.0 | 0.07 | 0.53 |
Aquifers 2–3 | Gaussian | 0.001 | 0.261 | 5050.0 | 0.02 | 0.67 |
Mean | Min | Max | SD. | 25th | 75th | Skewness | Kurtosis | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Aquifer 1 | Measured | 3.07 | −6.21 | 6.23 | 2.48 | 2.53 | 4.31 | −2.24 | 6.011 |
Kriging | 3.56 | −1.63 | 4.60 | 0.80 | 3.38 | 3.98 | −3.20 | 15.104 | |
Rank1 | 3.77 | −5.12 | 6.23 | 1.71 | 3.17 | 4.66 | −2.40 | 9.986 | |
Rank2 | 3.55 | −5.12 | 6.23 | 1.71 | 3.15 | 4.30 | −2.50 | 9.911 | |
Rank3 | 3.78 | −5.12 | 6.23 | 1.72 | 3.17 | 4.71 | −2.44 | 10.599 | |
Aquifer 2 | Measured | 3.27 | −1.00 | 4.54 | 1.04 | 2.98 | 3.95 | −2.05 | 6.770 |
Kriging | 3.26 | 1.02 | 4.27 | 0.58 | 3.04 | 3.63 | −1.01 | 1.613 | |
Rank1 | 3.32 | −1.00 | 4.54 | 1.05 | 3.03 | 3.97 | −1.92 | 5.184 | |
Rank2 | 3.29 | −1.00 | 4.54 | 1.04 | 3.01 | 3.95 | −1.91 | 5.356 | |
Rank3 | 3.32 | −1.00 | 4.54 | 1.07 | 3.01 | 3.98 | −1.93 | 5.071 | |
Aquifer 3 | Measured | 2.99 | −1.57 | 5.15 | 1.26 | 2.36 | 3.82 | −1.243 | 3.031 |
Kriging | 3.16 | 0.69 | 4.46 | 0.55 | 2.87 | 3.48 | −0.581 | 1.672 | |
Rank1 | 3.12 | −1.57 | 5.15 | 1.25 | 2.49 | 3.87 | −1.151 | 2.857 | |
Rank2 | 3.08 | −1.57 | 5.15 | 1.24 | 2.43 | 3.88 | −1.081 | 2.567 | |
Rank3 | 3.03 | −1.57 | 5.15 | 1.24 | 2.37 | 3.86 | −1.052 | 2.313 |
NSE Index | Aquifers 1, 2 and 3 | Aquifer 1 | Aquifer 2 | Aquifer 3 |
---|---|---|---|---|
<0.60 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 3 |
<0.65 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 10 |
<0.70 | 5 | 6 | 6 | 28 |
© 2017 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Lin, Y.-P.; Chen, Y.-W.; Chang, L.-C.; Yeh, M.-S.; Huang, G.-H.; Petway, J.R. Groundwater Simulations and Uncertainty Analysis Using MODFLOW and Geostatistical Approach with Conditioning Multi-Aquifer Spatial Covariance. Water 2017, 9, 164. https://doi.org/10.3390/w9030164
Lin Y-P, Chen Y-W, Chang L-C, Yeh M-S, Huang G-H, Petway JR. Groundwater Simulations and Uncertainty Analysis Using MODFLOW and Geostatistical Approach with Conditioning Multi-Aquifer Spatial Covariance. Water. 2017; 9(3):164. https://doi.org/10.3390/w9030164
Chicago/Turabian StyleLin, Yu-Pin, Yu-Wen Chen, Liang-Cheng Chang, Ming-Sheng Yeh, Guo-Hao Huang, and Joy R. Petway. 2017. "Groundwater Simulations and Uncertainty Analysis Using MODFLOW and Geostatistical Approach with Conditioning Multi-Aquifer Spatial Covariance" Water 9, no. 3: 164. https://doi.org/10.3390/w9030164