Environmental Geology

, Volume 48, Issue 1, pp 57–67 | Cite as

Influence of numerical precision on the calibration of AEM-based groundwater flow models

  • A. J. Rabideau
  • L. S. Matott
  • I. Jankovic
  • J. R. Craig
  • M. W. Becker
Original Article

Abstract

Groundwater modelers have embraced the use of automated calibration tools based on classical nonlinear regression techniques. While clearly an improvement over trial-and-error calibration, it is not clear to what extent these popular inverse modeling tools yield accurate parameter sets for groundwater flow models. The impact of model configuration and precision upon automated parameter estimation is also unclear. An extensive set of numerical experiments was performed to explore the influence of model configuration on the calibration of a regional groundwater flow model developed using the analytic element method. The results provided insight into the manner in which the specified level of model precision and the location of observation points influence the results of inverse modeling based on nonlinear regression. While the importance of these issues is application-specific, obtaining an accurate model calibration for the case study required both a careful placement of test observations and a greater-than-anticipated level of model precision. The required level of model precision for calibration was more than necessary to produce an acceptable flow solution.

Keywords

Groundwater Analytic element modeling Calibration USA New York state 

References

  1. Bravo HR, Jiang F, Hunt RJ (2002) Using ground-water temperature data to constrain parameter estimation in a ground-water flow model of a wetland system. Water Resour Res 38(8):28-1–28-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Christensen S, Rasmussen KR, Mueller K (1998) Prediction of regional ground water flow to streams. Ground Water 36(2):351–360Google Scholar
  3. Cooley RL (1997) Confidence intervals for ground-water models using linearization, like-lihood, and bootstrap methods. Ground Water 35(5):869–880Google Scholar
  4. Doherty J (2001) PEST: model-independent parameter estimation. Watermark numerical computing. S.S. Papadopoulus Associates, BethesdaGoogle Scholar
  5. Doherty J (2002) Ground water model calibration using pilot points and regularization. Ground Water 41(2):170–177Google Scholar
  6. Fredrick KC, Becker MW, Flewelling DM, Silaviseth W, Hart E (2003) Enhancement of the aquifer vulnerability indexing using the analytic element method. Environ Geol 45(8):1054–1061CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hill MC (1998) Methods and guidelines for effective model calibration. U.S. Geological Survey Water Resources Investigation Report 98–4005Google Scholar
  8. Jankovic I (2001) SPLIT: Win32 computer program for analytic-based modeling of single-layer ground water flow in heterogeneous aquifers with particle tracking, capture zone delineation, and parameter estimation. Department of Civil, Structural, and Environmental Engineering, University at Buffalo, Buffalo, http://www.groundwater.buffalo.edu
  9. Jankovic I, Barnes R (1999) High order line elements in modeling two-dimensional ground water flow. J Hydrol 226:211–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kelson VA, Hunt RJ, Haitjema HM (2002) Improving a regional model using reduced complexity and parameter estimation. Ground Water 40(2):132–143PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Kraemer SR, de Lange W (1997) Regional-scale ground-water modeling of the Delmarva Peninsula (USA) using analytic elements. In: International conference on analytic-based modeling of ground water flow, Nunspeet, The Netherlands, 7 April 1997Google Scholar
  12. Kraemer SR, Haitjema HM, Kelson VA (2000) Working with WhAEM2000, Source water assessment for a glacial outwash wellfield, Vincennes, Indiana. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA/600/R-00/022, Office of Research and Development, Research Triangle ParkGoogle Scholar
  13. Matott LS (2003) OSTRICH: an optimization software tool; Documentation and User’s Guide. Department of Civil, Structural, and Environmental Engineering, University at Buffalo, Buffalo, http://www.groundwater.buffalo.edu
  14. Poeter EPP, Hill MC (1997) Inverse models: a necessary next step in ground-water modeling. Ground Water 35(2):250–260Google Scholar
  15. Poeter EPP, Hill MC (1998) Documentation of UCODE: a computer code for universal inverse modeling. U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water Resources Investigations Report 98-4080Google Scholar
  16. Power BF, Barnes R (1993) Model calibration techniques for use with the analytic element method. Ground Water 31(1):91–97Google Scholar
  17. Saiers JE, Genereux DP, Bolster CH (2004) Influence of calibration methodology on ground water predictions. Ground Water 42(1):32–40PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Strack ODL (1989) Ground water mechanics. Prentice-Hall, Englewood CliffsGoogle Scholar
  19. Tesmer IH (1975) Geology of Cattaraugus County, vol 27. Buffalo Society of Natural Sciences Bulletin, BuffaloGoogle Scholar
  20. Tiedeman CR, Hill MC, Agnese AD, Faunt CC (2002) Methods for using ground water model predictions to guide hydrogeologic data collection, with application to the Death Valley regional ground water system. Water Resour Res 39(1):1010–1255Google Scholar
  21. Yager R (1998) Detecting influential observations in nonlinear regression modeling of ground water flow. Water Resour Res 34(7):1623–1634CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • A. J. Rabideau
    • 1
  • L. S. Matott
    • 1
  • I. Jankovic
    • 1
  • J. R. Craig
    • 1
  • M. W. Becker
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Civil, Structural, and Environmental EngineeringUniversity at BuffaloBuffaloUSA
  2. 2.Department of GeologyUniversity at BuffaloBuffaloUSA

Personalised recommendations