Advertisement

Geostatistical estimation of parameters for hydrologic transport modeling

  • P. G. Doctor
  • R. W. Nelson
Article

Abstract

A significant part of the work of evaluating a geologic formation as a potential repository for hazardous wastes is the modeling of contaminant transport in the surrounding media in the event the repository is breached. The transport equations that are commonly used are deterministic functions. However, because the data can vary within the area being considered, there is a degree of uncertainty associated with the results obtained from the contaminant transport models. There are several ways to incorporate uncertainties into the transport equations, but they assume that distributions and parameters such as variances and covariances are known. This paper discusses the application of geostatistical spatial estimation techniques to estimate quantities used in transport modeling. The techniques are illustrated on data from an electric analog simulation of a two-dimensional ground water system. Geostatistical methods were used to estimate potential and hydraulic conductivity surfaces from data generated from the simulation of the ground water system. Although the two surfaces were highly dependent through Darcy's Law, they were estimated independently. Independent verification of the two surfaces showed that they approximately satisfied the required conservation of mass condition that: ∇ ⋅ v = 0.

Key words

geostatistics hydrologic transport kriging radioactive waste disposal 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Agterberg, F. P., 1974, Geomathematics: Elsevier Scientific Publishing Co., New York, N.Y.Google Scholar
  2. Akima, H., 1975, Comments on ‘Optimal contour mapping using universal kriging’ by Ricardo A. Olea. Jour. Geophys. Res., v. 80, n. 5, p. 832–836.Google Scholar
  3. Bakr, A. A., Gelhar, L. W., Gutjahr, A. L., and MacMillan, J. R., 1978, Stochastic analysis of spatial variability in subsurface flows. 1. comparison of one- and three-dimensional flows: Water Resour. Res., v. 14, n. 2, p. 263–271.Google Scholar
  4. Bear, J., 1972, Dynamics of fluids in porous media: Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company, New York.Google Scholar
  5. Chiles, J. P., 1975, How to adapt kriging to non-classical problems: Three case studies,in ( . , ed.), Advanced geostatistics in the mining industry.Google Scholar
  6. Davis, J. D., 1973, Statistics and data analysis in geology: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York.Google Scholar
  7. Delfiner, P., 1975, Linear estimation of non-stationary spatial phenomena,in M. Guarasco, M. David, and C. Huijbregts, (eds.), Advanced geostatistics in the mining industry: D. Reidel Publishing Company, Boston, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  8. Delfiner, P., 1978, The intrinsic model of orderk (Report C-71): Center for Geostatistics, Paris School of Mines, 35 Rue Saint Honore, Fontainebleau, France.Google Scholar
  9. Delfiner, P., and Delhomme, J. P., 1975, Optimum interpolation by kriging,in J. C. Davis, and M. J. McCullagh (eds.), Display and analysis of spatial data: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York.Google Scholar
  10. Delhomme, J. P., 1978, Kriging in the hydrosciences: Adv. Water Resour., v. 1, n. 5, p. 251–266.Google Scholar
  11. Delhomme, J. P., 1979, Spatial variability and uncertainty in groundwater flow parameters: A geostatistical approach: Water Resour. Res., v. 15, n. 2, p. 269–280.Google Scholar
  12. Doctor, P. G., 1979, An evaluation of kriging techniques for high level radioactive waste repository site characterization: PNL-2903, Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, Washington.Google Scholar
  13. Gambolati, G. and Giampiero, V., 1920, Groundwater contour mapping in Venice by stochastic interpolators. 1. Theory: Water Resour. Res., v. 15, n. 2, p. 281–290.Google Scholar
  14. Gelhar, L. W., Gutjahr, A. L., and Naff, R. L., 1979, Stochastic analysis of macro-dispersion in a stratified aquifer: Water Resour. Res., v. 15, n. 6, p. 1387–1397.Google Scholar
  15. Giampiero, V. and Gambolati, G., 1979, Groundwater contour mapping in Venice by stochastic interpolators, 2. Results: Water Resour. Res., v. 15, n. 2, p. 291–297.Google Scholar
  16. Gutjahr, A. L., Gelhar, L. W., Bahr, A. A., and MacMillan, J. R., 1978, Stochastic analysis of spatial variability in subsurface flows, 2. Evaluation and application: Water Resour. Res., v. 14, n. 5, p. 953–959.Google Scholar
  17. Huijbregts, C. J., 1975, Regionalized variables and quantitative analysis of spatial data,in J. C. Davis and M. J. McCullagh, (eds.): Display and analysis of spatial data: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York.Google Scholar
  18. Krige, D. K., 1966, Two-dimensional weighted moving average trend surfaces for ore valuation: Jour. South African Inst. Min. Metall., p. 13–79.Google Scholar
  19. Matheron, G., 1963, Principles of geostatistics: Eco. Geol., v. 58, p. 1246–1266.Google Scholar
  20. Matheron, G., 1971, The theory of regionalized variables and its applications, v. 5: Centre for Mathematical Morphology, Paris School of Mines, Fontainebleau, France.Google Scholar
  21. Olea, R. A., 1974, Optimal contour mapping using universal kriging: J. Geophys. Res., v. 79, n. 5, p. 695–702.Google Scholar
  22. Watson, G. S., 1972, Trend surface analysis and spatial correlation: Geological Society of America Special Paper 146.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1981

Authors and Affiliations

  • P. G. Doctor
    • 1
  • R. W. Nelson
    • 1
  1. 1.Pacific Northwest LaboratoryRichlandUSA

Personalised recommendations