Application of a link simulation optimization model utilizing quantification of hydrogeologic uncertainty to characterize unknown groundwater contaminant sources
- 26 Downloads
In existing groundwater contamination source characterization methodologies, simulation models estimate the contamination concentration in the study area. In order to obtain reliable solutions, it is essential to provide the simulation models with reliable hydrogeological properties. In real-life scenarios often high level of uncertainty and variability is associated with the hydrogeological properties. This study focuses on quantifying the hydrogeological parameter uncertainty to enhance the accuracy of identifying contamination release histories. Tracer experiment results at the Eastlakes Experimental Site, located in Botany Sands Aquifer, in New South Wales, Australia, are utilized to examine the performance and potential applicability of the methodology. In the selected study area, the hydrogeological heterogeneity in the microscopic scale, specifically the hydraulic conductivity, has substantial effect on the transport of pollutants. Among available tracer information, Bromide is studied as a conservative contaminant. Using possible realizations of the flow field, a coefficient of confidence (COC) is calculated for each field monitoring locations and times. Higher COC implies that the result of simulation models at that specific monitoring location and time is more reliable than other contaminant concentration data. Therefore, the optimization model should emphasise matching the corresponding estimated and observed contamination concentrations to accurately identify the contaminant release locations and histories. The linked simulation–optimisation method is utilised to optimally characterise the Bromide sources. Performance evaluation results demonstrate that the proposed methodology recovers pollution source characteristics more accurately compared to the methodology which does not consider the effect of hydrogeological parameter uncertainty.
KeywordsHydrogeology Parameter uncertainty Source characterization Groundwater Tracer test Optimization
B. Datta thanks CRC for Contamination Assessment and Remediation of Environment (CRC-CARE), University of New Castle, NSW, Australia for providing financial support for this research through Project: no. 220.127.116.11.09/10(2.6.03), CRC-CARE-Bithin Datta (JCU) which also funded the Ph.D. scholarship of the first author. M. Amirabdollahian also acknowledges the financial support by CRC-CARE, and James Cook University, Australia.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest. It is to be noted that NSW Department of Industry is not associated or endorsing any component of this research material or its results.
- Amirabdollahian M, Datta B (2014) Identification of pollutant source characteristics under uncertainty in contaminated water resources systems using adaptive simulated annealing and fuzzy logic. Int J Geomate 6(1):757–762Google Scholar
- Beck PH (2000) Transport of conservative and reactive inorganic elements in the saturated part of a hetrogeneous sand aquifer, Botany Basin. University of New South Wales, SydneyGoogle Scholar
- Clemo T (2003) Improved water table dynamics in block-centered finite-difference flow models. In: MODFLOW and more 2003: understanding through modeling, Golden, Colorado, USA 11–14 September 2003Google Scholar
- Evans DJ (1993) A physical and hydrochemical characterisation of a sand aquifer in Sydney. University of New South Wales, Sydney (unpubl.) Google Scholar
- Freeze RA, James B, Massmann J, Sperling T, Smith L (1992) Hydrogeological decision analysis: 4. The concept of data worth and its use in the development of site investigation strategies. Ground Water 30(4):574–588. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6584.1992.tb01534.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Goovaerts P (1997) Geostatistics for natural resources evaluation. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Guillaume JHA, Hunt RJ, Comunian A, Fu B, Blakers R (2016) Methods for exploring uncertainty in groundwater management predictions. In: Jakeman AJ, Barreteau O, Hunt RJ, Rinaudo JD, Ross A (eds) Integrated groundwater management. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-23576-9_28 Google Scholar
- Ingber L (1996) Adaptive simulated annealing (ASA): lessons learned. Control Cybern 25(1):33–54Google Scholar
- Jankowski J, Beck P (2000) Aquifer heterogeneity: hydrogeological and hydrochemical properties of the Botany Sands Aquifer and their impact on contaminant transport. Aust J Earth Sci 47(1):45–64 (copyright © Geological Society of Australia, reprinted by permission of Taylor & Francis Ltd, http://www.tandfonline.com on behalf of Geological Society of Australia) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Moo-Young H, Johnson B, Johnson A, Carson D, Lew C, Liu S et al (2004) Characterization of infiltration rates from landfills: supporting groundwater modeling efforts. Environ Monit Assess 96(1–3):283–311. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:EMAS.0000031734.67778.d7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Ross TJ (2005) Fuzzy logic with engineering applications (vol. book, whole). Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
- Schlumberger Water Services (2011) Visual MODFLOW help. http://www.swstechnology.com/help/vmod/index.html?vm_ch5_run5.htm. Accessed 6 Feb 2018
- Sun NZ (1994) Inverse problems in groundwater modeling. Kluwer Academic, BostonGoogle Scholar
- Yu XW (1994) Study of physical and chemical properties of groundwater and surface water in the northern part of the Botany Basin, Sydney. University of New South wales, Sydney (unpubl) Google Scholar
- Zheng C, Wang PP (1999) A modular three-dimensional multispecies transport model for simulation of advection, dispersion, and chemical reactions of contaminants in groundwater systems. Documentation and User’s. CiteseerGoogle Scholar
- Zheng C, Hill MC, Hsieh PA (2001) MODFLOW-2000, the U.S. geological survey modular ground-water model-user guide to the LMT6 package, the linkage with MT3DMS for multi-species mass transport modeling. In: U. S. G. SURVEY (ed) Open file report 01-82. Denver, ColoradoGoogle Scholar