Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Planning of Groundwater Supply Systems Subject to Uncertainty Using Stochastic Flow Reduced Models and Multi-Objective Evolutionary Optimization

  • Published:
Water Resources Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The typical modeling approach to groundwater management relies on the combination of optimization algorithms and subsurface simulation models. In the case of groundwater supply systems, the management problem may be structured into an optimization problem to identify the pumping scheme that minimizes the total cost of the system while complying with a series of technical, economical, and hydrological constraints. Since lack of data on the subsurface system most often reflects upon the development of groundwater flow models that are inherently uncertain, the solution to the groundwater management problem should explicitly consider the tradeoff between cost optimality and the risk of not meeting the management constraints. This work addresses parameter uncertainty following a stochastic simulation (or Monte Carlo) approach, in which a sufficiently large ensemble of parameter scenarios is used to determine representative values selected from the statistical distribution of the management objectives, that is, minimizing cost while minimizing risk. In particular, the cost of the system is estimated as the expected value of the cost distribution sampled through stochastic simulation, while the risk of not meeting the management constraints is quantified as the expected value of the intensity of constraint violation. The solution to the multi-objective optimization problem is addressed by combining a multi-objective evolutionary algorithm with a stochastic model simulating groundwater flow in confined aquifers. Evolutionary algorithms are particularly appropriate in optimization problems characterized by non-linear and discontinuous objective functions and constraints, although they are also computationally demanding and require intensive analyses to tune input parameters that guarantee optimality to the solutions. In order to drastically reduce the otherwise overwhelming computational cost, a novel stochastic flow reduced model is thus developed, which practically allows for averting the direct inclusion of the full simulation model in the optimization loop. The computational efficiency of the proposed framework is such that it can be applied to problems characterized by large numbers of decision variables.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ahlfeld DP, Mulligan AE (2000) Optimal management of flow in groundwater systems. Academic Press, San Diego

    Google Scholar 

  • Aly AH, Peralta RC (1999) Optimal design of aquifer cleanup systems under uncertainty using a neural network and a genetic algorithm. Water Resour Res 35(8):2523–2532

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ataie-Ashtiani B, Ketabchi H (2011) Elitist continuous ant colony optimization algorithm for optimal management of coastal aquifers. Water Resour Manage 25:165–190. doi:10.1007/s11269-010-9693-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barlow PM, Wagner BJ, Belitz K (1996) Pumping strategies for management of a shallow water table: the value of the simulation-optimization approach. Ground Water 34(2):305–317

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barlow PM, Ahlfeld DP, Dickerman DC (2003) Conjunctive-management models for sustained yield of stream-aquifer systems. J Water Resour Plan Manage 129(1):35–48

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baú DA, Mayer AS (2006) Stochastic management of pump-and-treat strategies using surrogate functions. Adv Water Resour 29(12):1901–1917

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baú DA, Mayer AS (2008) Optimal design of pump-and-treat systems under uncertain hydraulic and plume distribution. J Cont Hydrol 100(1–2):30–46

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bayer P, Finkel M (2004) Evolutionary algorithms for the optimization of advective control of contaminated aquifer zones. Water Resour Res 40:W06,506. doi:10.1029/2003WR002675

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bayer P, Bürger C, Finkel M (2008) Computationally efficient stochastic optimization using multiple realizations. Adv Water Resour 31(2):399–417

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bayer P, de Paly M, Bürger C (2010) Optimization of high-reliability-based hydrological design problems by roust automatic sampling of critical model realizations. Water Resour Res 46:w05,504. doi:10.1029/2009WR008081

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bear J (1972) Dynamics of fluids in porous media. Elsevier, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Becker DB, Minsker B, Greenwald R, Zhang Y, Harre K, Yager K, Zheng C, Peralta RC (2006) Reducing long-term remedial costs by transport modeling optimization. Ground Water 44(6):864–875

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benjamin JR, Cornell CA (1970) Probability, statistics and decision for civil engineers. McGraw-Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Bhattacharjya R, Datta B (2005) Optimal management of coastal aquifers using linked simulation optimization approach. Water Resour Manage 19:295–32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Booker AJ, Dennis JE, Frank PD, Serafini DB, Torczon V, Trosset MW (1999) A rigorous framework for optimization of expensive functions by surrogates. Struct Optim 17:1–13

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cai XM, Lasdon L, Michelsen AM (2004) Group decision making in water resources planning using multiple objective analysis. J Water Resour Plan Manage 130(1):4–14

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chu MT (1998) Inverse eigenvalue problems. SIAM Rev 40(1):139

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cieniawski SE, Eheart JW, Ranjithan S (1995) Using genetic algorithms to solve a multiobjective groundwater monitoring problem. Water Resour Res 31(2):399–409

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coello-Coello C, Lamont GB, Veldhuizen DAV (2007) Evolutionary algorithms for solving multi-objective problems. Springer, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooper Jr GS, Peralta RC, Kaluarachchi JJ (1998) Optimizing separate light hydrocarbon recovery from contaminated unconfined aquifers. Adv Water Resour 21(5):339–350

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Marsily G (1986) Quantitative hydrology: groundwater hydrology for engineers. Academic Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Deb K, Pratap A, Agarwal S, Meyarivan T (2002) A fast and elitist multi-objective genetic algorithm: NSGA-II). IEEE Trans Evol Comput 6(2):182–197

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dhar A, Datta B (2009) Saltwater intrusion management of coastal aquifers. I: Linked simulation-optimization. J Hydrol Eng 14(12):1263–1272

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Erickson M, Mayer AS, Horn J (2002) Multi-objective optimal design of groundwater remediation systems: application of the niched Pareto genetic algorithm (NPGA). Adv Water Resour 25:51–65

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fowler KR, Kelley CT, Miller CT, Kees CE, Darwin RW, Reese JP, Farthing MW, Reed MSC (2004) Solution of a well-field design problem with implicit filtering. Optim Eng 5(2):207–234

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freeze RA, Gorelick SM (1999) Convergence of stochastic optimization and decision analysis in the engineering design of aquifer remediation. Ground Water 37(6):934–954

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gambolati G, Pini G, Tucciarelli T (1986) A 3-d finite element conjugate gradient model of subsurface flow with automatic mesh generation. Adv Water Resour 3:34–41

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gambolati G, Putti M, Paniconi C (1999) Three-dimensional model of coupled density-dependent flow and miscible salt transport in groundwater. In: Bear J, Cheng AHD, Sorek S, Ouazar D, Herrera I (eds) Seawater intrusion in coastal aquifers; concepts, methods and practices, chap 10. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecth, pp 315–362

    Google Scholar 

  • Gharbi A, Peralta RC (1994) Integrated embedding optimization applied to Salt Lake Valley aquifers. Water Resour Res 30(3):817–832

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldberg DE (1982) Genetic algorithms in search, optimization, and machine learning. Addison-Wesley, Reading

    Google Scholar 

  • Gorelick SM (1983) A review of distributed parameter groundwater management modeling methods. Water Resour Res 19(2):305–319

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gorelick SM (1997) Incorporating uncertainty into aquifer management models. In: Dagan G, Neuman SP (eds) Subsurface flow and transport, pp 101–112. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Horn J, Nafpliotis N, Goldberg DE (1994) A niched Pareto genetic algorithm for multiobjective optimization. In: Proceedings of the first IEEE conference on evolutionary computation (ICEC ’94). IEEE Service Center, Piscataway, pp 82–89

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Huang C, Mayer AS (1997) Pump-and-treat optimization using well locations and pumping rates as decision variables. Water Resour Res 33(5):1001–1012

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacob CE, Lohman SW (1952) Non-steady flow to a well of constant drawdown in an extensive aquifer. Trans Am Geophys Union 33:559–569

    Google Scholar 

  • Kourakos G, Mantoglou A (2008) Remediation of heterogeneous aquifers based on multiobjective optimization and adaptive determination of critical realizations. Water Resour Res 44:w12,408. doi:10.1029/2008WR007108

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kourakos G, Mantoglou A (2009) Pumping optimization of coastal aquifers based on evolutionary algorithms and surrogate modular neural network models. Adv Water Resour 32(4):507–521

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kourakos G, Mantoglou A (2011) Simulation and multi-objective management of coastal aquifers in semi-arid regions. Water Resour Manage 25:1063–1074. doi:10.1007/s11269-010-9677-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mantoglou A, Kourakos G (2007) Optimal groundwater remediation under uncertainty using multi-objective optimization. Water Resour Manage 21(5):835–847. doi:10.1007/s11269-006-9109-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maskey S, Jonoski A, Solomatine DP (2002) Groundwater remediation strategy using global optimization algorithms. J Water Resour Plan Manage 128(6):431–440

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer AS, Kelley CT, Miller CT (2002) Optimal design for problems involving flow and transport phenomena in saturated subsurface systems. Adv Water Resour 25(8–12):1233–1256

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McKinney DC, Lin M (1994) Genetic algorithm solutions of groundwater management models. Water Resour Res 30(6):1897–1906

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McPhee J, Yeh W (2004) Multiobjective optimization for sustainable groundwater management in semiarid regions. J Water Resour Plan Manage 130(6):490–497

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McPhee J, Yeh W (2008) Groundwater management using model reduction via empirical orthogonal functions. J Water Resour Plan Manage 134(2):161–170

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murtagh BA, Saunders MA (1987) Minos 5.1 user’s guide. Technical report sol 83-20r, Systems Optimization Laboratory. Stanford University, Stanford, California

  • Nicklow J, Reed P, Savic D, Dessalegne T, Harrell L, Chan-Hilton A, Karamouz M, Minsker B, Ostfeld A, Singh A, Zechman E (2010) State of the art for genetic algorithms and beyond in water resources planning and management. J Water Resour Plan Manage 136(4):412–432

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nikolos IK, Stergiadi M, Papadopoulou MP, Karatzas GP (2008) Artificial neural networks an alternative approach to groundwater numerical modeling and environmental design. Hydrol Process 22(17):3337–3348. doi:10.1002/hyp.6916

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Papadopoulou MP, Nikolos IK, Karatzas GP (2010) Computational benefits using artificial intelligent methodologies for the solution of an environmental design problem—saltwater intrusion. Water Sci Technol 62(7):1479–1490. doi:10.2166/wst.2010.442

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rao S, Bhallamudi S, Thandaveswara B, Mishra G (2004) Conjunctive use of surface and groundwater for coastal and deltaic systems. J Water Resour Plan Manage 130(3):255–267

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reed P, Minsker B, Valocchi A (2000) Cost-effective long-term groundwater monitoring design using a genetic algorithm and global mass interpolation. Water Resour Res 36(12):3731–3741

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ritzel BJ, Eheart JW, Ranjithan S (1994) Using genetic algorithms to solve a multiple objective groundwater pollution containment problem. Water Resour Res 30(5):1589–1603

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rogers LL, Dowla FU (1994) Optimization of groundwater remediation using artificial neural networks with parallel solute transport modelling. Water Resour Res 30(2):457–481

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Safavi HR, Darzi F, Mariño MA (2010) Simulation-optimization modeling of conjunctive use of surface water and grounwater. Water Resour Manage 24:1965–1988. doi:10.1007/s11269-009-9533-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shieh HJ, Peralta RC (2003) Optimal in situ bioremediation design by hybrid genetic algorithm and simulated annealing. J Water Resour Plan Manage 131(1):67–78

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siade AJ, Putti M, Yeh WWG (2010) Snapshot selection for groundwater model reduction using proper orthogonal decomposition. Water Resour Res 46:w08,539. doi:10.1029/2009WR008792

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singh A, Minsker B (2008) Uncertainty-based multiobjective optimization of groundwater remediation design. Water Resour Res 44:W02,404. doi:10.1029/2005WR004436

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smalley BJ, Minsker BS, Goldberg DE (2000) Risk-based in situ bioremediation design using a noisy genetic algorithm. Water Resour Res 36(10):3043–3052

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steuer RE (1986) Multiple criteria optimization: theory, software and testing examples in decision support systems. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Trichakis IC, Nikolos IK, Karatzas GP (2011) Artificial neural network (ANN) based modeling for karstic groundwater level simulation. Water Resour Manage 25:1143–1152. doi:10.1007/s11269-010-9628-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vermeulen P, Heemink A, Stroet CT (2004) Reduced models for linear groundwater flow models using empirical orthogonal functions. Adv Water Resour 27(1):57–69

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wagner BJ (1995) Recent advances in simulation optimization groundwater management. Rev Geophys 33:1021–1028

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang M, Zheng C (1998) Ground water management optimization using genetic algorithms and simulated annealing: formulation and comparison. J Am Water Res Assoc 34(3):519–530

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yan S, Minsker B (2006) Optimal groundwater remediation design using an adaptive neural network genetic algorithm. Water Resour Res 42:W05,407. doi:10.1029/2005WR004303

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yeh W (1992) System analysis in groundwater planning and management. J Water Resour Plan Manage 118(3):224–237

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The author wish to thank Dr. George Tsakiris and two anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments and suggestions. This work has been supported by the Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering at Colorado State University.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, USA

    Domenico A. Baú

Authors
  1. Domenico A. Baú
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Domenico A. Baú.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Baú, D.A. Planning of Groundwater Supply Systems Subject to Uncertainty Using Stochastic Flow Reduced Models and Multi-Objective Evolutionary Optimization. Water Resour Manage 26, 2513–2536 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-012-0030-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-012-0030-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation