Advertisement

Coupling Empirical Bayes and Akaike’s Bayesian Information Criterion to Estimate Aquifer Transmissivity Fields

  • 16 Accesses

Abstract

In this work, an empirical Bayes method was applied to estimate highly parameterized transmissivity fields in 2D aquifers under conditions of steady flow. The Bayesian inverse procedure was coupled with the Akaike’s Bayesian information criterion to identify both the main transmissivity field and the hyperparameters of the prior distribution. The forward problem, solved with a version of MODFLOW, consists in computing hydraulic heads at monitoring points considering fully known boundary conditions, and the transmissivity field. As for the required observations for the inverse problem, the monitored hydraulic head data were used. Due to the nonlinear relationship between the observed data (hydraulic heads) and the unknowns (log transmissivity values in each finite difference cell), the inverse approach is based on a successive linearization method coupled with an adjoint state methodology. At the end, the posterior distribution of the unknowns allows quantifying their uncertainty. The methodology was tested on a well-known literature case study consisting of a confined aquifer, with both Dirichelet- and Neumann-type boundary conditions and considering different degrees of heterogeneities. The inverse approach showed robust, efficient results fully consistent with other methods available in the literature. The methodology was implemented in a free and user-friendly code named ebaPEST.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant unlimited access to the full article PDF.

US$ 39.95

Price includes VAT for USA

Subscribe to journal

Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.

US$ 99

This is the net price. Taxes to be calculated in checkout.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

References

  1. Ahlfeld DP, Mulvey JM, Pinder GF, Wood EF (1988) Contaminated groundwater remediation design using simulation, optimization, and sensitivity theory: 1. Model development. Water Resour Res 24:431–441. https://doi.org/10.1029/WR024i003p00431

  2. Akaike H (1980) Likelihood and Bayes procedure. In: Bernardo JM, DeGroot MH, Lindley DV, Smith AFM (eds) Bayesian statistics. University Press, Valencia, pp 141–166

  3. Butera I, Soffia C (2017) Cokriging transmissivity, head and trajectory data for transmissivity and solute path estimation. Groundwater 55:362–374. https://doi.org/10.1111/gwat.12483

  4. Chelli A, Zanini A, Petrella E, Feo A, Celico F (2018) A multidisciplinary procedure to evaluate and optimize the efficacy of hydraulic barriers in contaminated sites: a case study in Northern Italy. Environ Earth Sci 77(6):246. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-018-7420-8

  5. Clemo T (2007) MODFLOW-2005 ground water model-User guide to the adjoint state based sensitivity process (ADJ). Technical Report, BSU CGISS 07-01, Boise State Univ., Boise, Idaho

  6. Comunian A, Giudici M (2018) Hybrid inversion method to estimate hydraulic transmissivity by combining multiple-point statistics and a direct inversion method. Math Geosci 50(2):147–167. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11004-018-9727-0

  7. Crestaz E, Pambianco P, Patata L (1994) Industrial chemical plant pollution study and reclamation measures assessment by groundwater modelling. Adv Eng Softw 21:67–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/0965-9978(94)90033-7

  8. D’Oria M, Fienen MN (2012) MODFLOW-style parameters in underdetermined parameter estimation. Groundwater 50:149–153. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6584.2011.00803.x

  9. D’Oria M, Zanini A (2019) Characterization of hydraulic heterogeneity of alluvial aquifer using natural stimuli: a field experience of Northern Italy. Water 11(1):176. https://doi.org/10.3390/w11010176

  10. D’Oria M, Lanubile R, Zanini A (2015) Bayesian estimation of a highly parameterized hydraulic conductivity field: a study case. Procedia Environ Sci 25:82–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proenv.2015.04.012

  11. D’Oria M, Zanini A, Cupola F (2018) Oscillatory pumping test to estimate aquifer hydraulic parameters in a Bayesian geostatistical framework. Math Geosci 50:169. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11004-017-9717-7

  12. Doherty J (2010) PEST, Model-independent parameter estimation—user manual (5th ed., with slight additions). Watermark Numerical Computing, Brisbane

  13. Fienen MN, D’Oria M, Doherty JE, Hunt RJ (2013) Approaches in highly parameterized inversion: bgaPEST, a Bayesian geostatistical approach implementation with PEST-Documentation and instructions. In: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques and Methods 7-C9. https://pubs.usgs.gov/tm/07/c09. Accessed 9 Jan 2020

  14. Gorelick SM (1983) A review of distributed parameter groundwater management modeling methods. Water Resour Res 19:305–319. https://doi.org/10.1029/WR019i002p00305

  15. Harbaugh AW (2005) MODFLOW-2005, the U.S. Geological Survey modular ground-water model—the ground-water flow process. In: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques and Methods 6-A16

  16. Hendricks Franssen HJ, Alcolea A, Riva M, Bakr N, van der Wiel N, Stauffer F, Guadagnini A (2009) A comparison of seven methods for the inverse modelling of groundwater flow. Application to the characterisation of well catchments. Adv Water Resour 32(6):851–872. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advwatres.2009.02.011

  17. Hoeksema RJ, Kitanidis PK (1984) An application of the geostatistical approach to the inverse problem in two-dimensional groundwater modeling. Water Resour Res 20(7):1003–1020. https://doi.org/10.1029/WR020i007p01003

  18. Jiang Y, Woodbury AD (2006) A full Bayesian approach to the inverse problem for steady-state groundwater flow and heat transport. Geophys J Int 167:1501–1512. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-246X.2006.03145.x

  19. Jiang Y, Woodbury AD, Painter S (2004) Full-Bayesian inversion of the Edwards aquifer. Groundwater 42(5):724–733. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6584.2004.tb02726.x

  20. Journel AG, Kyriakidis PC, Mao S (2000) Correcting the smoothing effect of estimators: a spectral postprocessor. Math Geol 32:787. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007544406740

  21. Kennedy PL, Woodbury AD (2002) Geostatistics and Bayesian updating for transmissivity estimation in a multiaquifer system in Manitoba, Canada. Groundwater 40:273–283. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6584.2002.tb02655.x

  22. Le Coz M, Bodin J, Renard P (2017) On the use of multiple-point statistics to improve groundwater flow modeling in karst aquifers: a case study from the hydrogeological experimental site of Poitiers, France. J Hydrol 545:109–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2016.12.010

  23. Marinoni M, Delay F, Ackerer P, Riva M, Guadagnini A (2016) Identification of groundwater flow parameters using reciprocal data from hydraulic interference tests. J Hydrol 539:88–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2016.05.019

  24. Mitsuhata Y (2004) Adjustment of regularization in ill-posed linear inverse problems by the empirical Bayes approach. Geophys Prospect 52(3):213–239. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2478.2004.00412.x

  25. O’Neill R (1971) Algorithm AS 47: function Minimization Using a Simplex Procedure. Appl Stat 20(3):338–345

  26. Refsgaard A, Jorgensen G (1990) Use of three-dimensional modelling in groundwater management and protection. In: Gambolati G, Rinaldo A, Brebbia CA, Gray WG, Pinder GF (eds) Computational methods in subsurface hydrology. Publ by Springer-Verlag Berlin, Proceedings of the 8th international conference on computational methods in water resources, Venice, Italy, 6/11/90

  27. Riva M, Panzeri M, Guadagnini A, Neuman SP (2011) Role of model selection criteria in geostatistical inverse estimation of statistical data- and model-parameters. Water Resour Res 47(W07502). https://doi.org/10.1029/2011wr010480

  28. Riva M, Guadagnini A, Neuman SP (2017) Theoretical analysis of non-Gaussian heterogeneity effects on subsurface flow and transport. Water Resour Res 53:2998–3012. https://doi.org/10.1002/2016WR019353

  29. Sanz D, Vos J, Rambags F, Hoogesteger J, Cassiraga E, Gómez-Alday JJ (2018) The social construction and consequences of groundwater modelling: insight from the Mancha Oriental aquifer, Spain. Int J Water Resour D. https://doi.org/10.1080/07900627.2018.1495619

  30. Singh A (2013) Groundwater modelling for the assessment of water management alternatives. J Hydrol 481:220–229. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2012.12.042

  31. Stefania G, Rotiroti M, Fumagalli L, Zanotti C, Bonomi T (2018) Numerical modeling of remediation scenarios of a groundwater Cr(VI) plume in an Alpine Valley Aquifer. Geosciences 8:209. https://doi.org/10.3390/geosciences8060209

  32. Tarantola A (1987) Inverse problem theory: methods for data fitting and model parameter estimation. Elsevier, New York

  33. Ulrych TJ, Sacchi MD, Woodbury AD (2001) A Bayes tour of inversion: a tutorial. Geophysics 66(1):55–69. https://doi.org/10.1190/1.1444923

  34. Vázquez-Suñé E, Sánchez-Vila X (1999) Groundwater modelling in urban areas as a tool for local authority management: Barcelona case study (Spain). IAHS-AISH Publ., Wallingford, pp 65–72

  35. Weber EM, Hassan AA (1972) Role of models in groundwater management. J Am Water Resour Assoc 8:198–206. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-1688.1972.tb05108.x

  36. Woodbury AD, Ferguson G (2006) Ground surface paleotemperature reconstruction using information measures and empirical Bayes. Geophys Res Lett 33:L06702. https://doi.org/10.1029/2005gl025243

  37. Woodbury AD, Ulrych YJ (2000) A full Bayesian approach to the groundwater inverse problem for steady state flow. Water Resour Res 36(8):2081–2093. https://doi.org/10.1029/2000WR900086

  38. Xu T, Gómez-Hernández JJ (2015) Inverse sequential simulation: a new approach for the characterization of hydraulic conductivities demonstrated on a non-Gaussian field. Water Resour Res 51:2227–2242. https://doi.org/10.1002/2014WR016320

  39. Xu T, Gómez-Hernández JJ (2018) Simultaneous identification of a contaminant source and hydraulic conductivity via the restart normal-score ensemble Kalman filter. Adv Water Resour 112:106–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advwatres.2017.12.011

  40. Yamamoto JK (2005) Correcting the smoothing effect of ordinary kriging estimates. Math Geol 37:69. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11004-005-8748-7

  41. Zanini A, Woodbury AD (2016) Contaminant source reconstruction by empirical Bayes and Akaike’s Bayesian Information Criterion. J Contam Hydrol 185–186:74–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jconhyd.2016.01.006

  42. Zanini A, Tanda MG, Woodbury AD (2017) Identification of transmissivity fields using a Bayesian strategy and perturbative approach. Adv Water Resour 108:69–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advwatres.2017.07.022

  43. Zhou H, Gómez-Hernández JJ, Liangping L (2014) Inverse methods in hydrogeology: evolution and recent trends. Adv Water Resour 63:22–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advwatres.2013.10.014

  44. Zimmerman DA, DeMarsily G, Gotway CA, Marietta MG, Axness CL, Beauheim RL, Bras RL, Carrera J, Dagan G, Davies PB, Gallegos DP, Galli A, Gómez-Hernández JJ, Grindrod P, Gutjahr AL, Kitanidis PK, Lavenue AM, McLaughlin D, Neuman SP, RamaRao BS, Ravenne C, Rubin Y (1998) A comparison of seven geostatistically based inverse approaches to estimate transmissivities for modeling advective transport by groundwater flow. Water Resour Res 34(6):1373–1413. https://doi.org/10.1029/98WR00003

Download references

Author information

Correspondence to Andrea Zanini.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Zanini, A., D’Oria, M., Tanda, M.G. et al. Coupling Empirical Bayes and Akaike’s Bayesian Information Criterion to Estimate Aquifer Transmissivity Fields. Math Geosci (2020) doi:10.1007/s11004-019-09850-4

Download citation

Keywords

  • ABIC
  • Highly parameterized inversion
  • Groundwater
  • Transmissivity estimation
  • Inverse modeling