Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Illuminating groundwater flow modeling uncertainty through spatial discretization and complexity exploration

  • Research Article - Hydrology and Hydraulics
  • Published:
Acta Geophysica Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Uncertainty in groundwater modeling presents a significant challenge, originating from various sources. This groundbreaking study aims to quantitatively assess uncertainties arising from spatial discretization and complexity dynamics. The research focuses on the Najafabad Aquifer in Esfahan, Iran, as a compelling case study. Five distinct conceptual models were developed, with parameter counts of 16 (model 1), 20 (model 2), 22 (model 3), and 26 (model 4 and 5), and subjected to a consistent spatial discretization of 500 m. Additionally, two alternative models with spatial discretizations of 250 m (model 1a) and 1000 m (model 1 b) were introduced based on the least complex model with 16 parameters. The study comprehensively examines groundwater uncertainty by manipulating spatial discretization while considering complexity dynamics. Model Muse facilitates simulation, and UCODE is utilized for calibration using observed hydraulic head data. Uncertainties are explored using Bayesian model-averaging (BMA) and model selection criteria. Comparing probabilities of the initial five models reveals increasing uncertainty with a greater number of parameters (KIC in model 1: 99.25%, model 2: 0.41%, model 3: 0.34%, model 4 and 5: 0%). Investigation of seven alternative models highlights the dominant influence of coarser spatial discretization on groundwater modeling uncertainty. Remarkably, despite the lowest complexity in model 1 with probability of 99.25%, the model with coarse spatial discretization (model 1b) exhibits the zero probability (KIC in model 1a: 93.42%, model 1: 6.53%, model 1b: 0%, model 2: 0.03%, model 3: 0.02%, model 4 and 5: 0%.). Thus, considering optimal parameter count and spatial discretization size is crucial in conceptual model development. This study pushes the boundaries of understanding the intricate relationship between spatial discretization, complexity, and groundwater modeling uncertainty. Findings hold significant implications for improving model accuracy and decision-making in hydrogeological studies.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

The data that support the findings of this study are publicly available and can be accessed at: http://wrs.wrm.ir/amar/register.asp. In addition, Model Muse and Model Mate software that applied in this study are open source and can be accessed at: https://water.usgs.gov/water-resources/software/ModelMuse/https://water.usgs.gov/software/ModelMate/

References

  • Akaike H (1974) A new look at the statistical model identification. IEEE Trans Autom Control 19(6):716–723

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bomers A, Schielen RMJ, Hulscher SJ (2019) The influence of grid shape and grid size on hydraulic river modelling performance. Environ Fluid Mech 19(5):1273–1294

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen B, Harp DR, Lu Z, Pawar RJ (2020) Reducing uncertainty in geologic CO2 sequestration risk assessment by assimilating monitoring data. Int J Greenhouse Gas Control 94:102926

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Choubin B, Hosseini FS, Rahmati O, Youshanloei MM (2023) A step toward considering the return period in flood spatial modeling. Nat Hazards 115(1):431–460

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diks CG, Vrugt JA (2010) Comparison of point forecast accuracy of model averaging methods in hydrologic applications. Stoch Env Res Risk Assess 24(6):809–820

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Downer CW, Ogden FL (2004) Appropriate vertical discretization of Richards’ equation for two-dimensional watershed-scale modelling. Hydrol Process 18(1):1–22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duan Q, Ajami NK, Gao X, Sorooshian S (2007) Multi-model ensemble hydrologic prediction using Bayesian model averaging. Adv Water Resour 30(5):1371–1386

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Emberger F (1969) Climatique la Tunisia. Instituto Agronomico perl’Oltremare, Florence, pp 31–52

    Google Scholar 

  • Enemark T, Madsen RB, Sonnenborg TO, Andersen LT, Sandersen PB, Kidmose J, Høyer AS (2024) Incorporating interpretation uncertainties from deterministic 3D hydrostratigraphic models in groundwater models. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 28(3):505–523

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Engelhardt I, De Aguinaga JG, Mikat H, Schüth C, Liedl R (2014) Complexity vs. simplicity: groundwater model ranking using information criteria. Groundwater 52(4):573–583

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Environmental simulations Inc (ESI), (2007) Guides to using ground water vista. Version 5, pp 372

  • Gogineni A, Chintalacheruvu MR (2023). Streamflow assessment of mountainous river basin using SWAT model. In: International conference on science, technology and engineering. Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore, pp 1–10

  • Gogineni A, Chintalacheruvu MR (2024) Hydrological modeling and uncertainty analysis for a snow-covered mountainous river basin. Acta Geophys. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11600-023-01270-

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haitjema H (2011). Model complexity: a cost-benefit issue. In: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, 43 (5), 354

  • Harbaugh AW (2005) Modflow-2005, the US Geological Survey modular ground-water model: the ground-water flow process. US Department of the Interior US Geological Survey, Reston VA, pp 6-A16

    Google Scholar 

  • Higdon D, Swall J and Kern J (2022). Non-stationary spatial modeling

  • Hill MC, Tiedeman CR (2006) Effective groundwater model calibration: with analysis of data, sensitivities, predictions, and uncertainty. John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken

    Google Scholar 

  • Holder J, Olson JE, Philip Z (2001) Experimental determination of subcritical crack growth parameters in sedimentary rock. Geophys Res Lett 28(4):599–602

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hurvich CM, Tsai CL (1989) Regression and time series model selection in small samples. Biometrika 76(2):297–307

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khan S, Vandermorris A, Shepherd J, Begun JW, Lanham HJ, Uhl-Bien M, Berta W (2018) Embracing uncertainty, managing complexity: applying complexity thinking principles to transformation efforts in healthcare systems. BMC health services research 18:1–8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kashyap RL (1982) Optimal choice of AR and MA parts in autoregressive moving average models. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell 2:99–104

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mahzabin A, Hossain MJ, Alam S, Shifat SE, Yunus A (2023) Groundwater level depletion assessment of Dhaka city using modflOW. Am J Water Res 11(1):28–40

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer PD, Ye M, Rockhold ML, Neuman SP, and Cantrell KJ (2007). Combined estimation of hydrogeologic conceptual model, parameter, and scenario uncertainty with application to uranium transport at the Hanford Site 300 Area).

  • Miro ME, Groves D, Tincher B, Syme J, Tanverakul S, Catt D (2021) Adaptive water management in the face of uncertainty: integrating machine learning, groundwater modeling and robust decision making. Clim Risk Manag 34:100383

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Navarro-Farfán MDM, García-Romero L, Martínez-Cinco MA, Hernández-Hernández MA, Sánchez-Quispe ST (2024) Comparison between modflow groundwater modeling with traditional and distributed recharge. Hydrology 11(1):9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neumann SP (2003) Maximum likelihood Bayesian averaging of uncertain model predictions. Stoch Env Res Risk A 17:291–305

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Poeter EE, Hill MC, Banta ER, Mehl S and Christensen S (2006) UCODE_2005 and six other computer codes for universal sensitivity analysis, calibration, and uncertainty evaluation constructed using the Jupiter API (No. 6-A11).

  • Pogson M, Smith P (2015) Effect of spatial data resolution on uncertainty. Environ Model Softw 63:87–96

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pogson M, Hastings A, Smith P (2012) Sensitivity of crop model predictions to entire meteorological and soil input datasets highlights vulnerability to drought. Environ Model Softw 29(1):37–43

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pohlmann K, Ye M, Reeves D, Zavarin M, Decker D, Chapman J (2007) Modeling of groundwater flow and radionuclide transport at the Climax mine sub-CAU, Nevada test site (No DOE/NV/26383–06; 45226). Desert Research Institute, Nevada System of Higher Education, Reno and Las Vegas, NV

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Raazia S, Dar AQ (2021) A numerical model of groundwater flow in Karewa-Alluvium aquifers of NW Indian Himalayan Region. Model Earth Syst Environ 81:1–12

    Google Scholar 

  • Refsgaard JC (1997) Parameterisation, calibration and validation of distributed hydrological models. J Hydrol 198(1–4):69–97

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rissanen J (1978) Modeling by shortest data description. Automatica 14(5):465–471

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roy S, Chintalacheruvu MR (2024) Delineating hydro-geologically constrained groundwater zones in the Himalayan River basins of India through an innovative ensemble of hypsometric analysis and machine learning algorithms. Earth Sci Inf 17(1):501–526

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Samani S, Kardan Moghaddam H (2022) Optimizing groundwater level monitoring networks with hydrogeological complexity and grid-based mapping methods. Environ Earth Sci 81(18):453

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Samani S, Moghaddam AA, Ye M (2018a) Investigating the effect of complexity on groundwater flow modeling uncertainty. Stoch Env Res Risk Assess 32(3):643–659

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Samani S, Ye M, Zhang F, Pei YZ, Tang GP, Elshall A, Moghaddam AA (2018b) Impacts of prior parameter distributions on Bayesian evaluation of groundwater model complexity. Water Science and Engineering 11(2):89–100

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sciuto G, Diekkruger B (2010) Influence of soil heterogeneity and spatial discretization on catchment water balance modeling. Vadose Zone J 9(4):955–969

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simmons CT, Hunt RJ (2012) Updating the debate on model complexity. GSA Today 22(8):28–29

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singh A, Mishra S, Ruskauff G (2010) Model averaging techniques for quantifying conceptual model uncertainty. Groundwater 48(5):701–715

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Singhal BBS, Gupta RP (2010) Applied hydrogeology of fractured rocks. Springer Science & Business Media, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Stampfl PF, Clifton-Brown JC, Jones MB (2007) European-wide GIS-based modelling system for quantifying the feedstock from Miscanthus and the potential contribution to renewable energy targets. Glob Change Biol 13(11):2283–2295

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sun W, Ma H, Qu W (2024) A hybrid numerical method for non-linear transient heat conduction problems with temperature-dependent thermal conductivity. Appl Math Lett 148:108868

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taşan M, Taşan S, Demir Y (2023) Estimation and uncertainty analysis of groundwater quality parameters in a coastal aquifer under seawater intrusion: a comparative study of deep learning and classic machine learning methods. Environ Sci Pollut Res 30(2):2866–2890

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor A, Peach D (2023) Groundwater modeling of the Silala basin and impacts of channelization. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Water 11:e1662

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thornton JM, Therrien R, Mariéthoz G, Linde N, Brunner P (2022) Simulating fully-integrated hydrological dynamics in complex Alpine headwaters: potential and challenges. Water Resour Res 58(4):e2020WR029390

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vázquez RF, Feyen L, Feyen J, Refsgaard JC (2002) Effect of grid size on effective parameters and model performance of the MIKE-SHE code. Hydrol Process 16(2):355–372

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang S, Hastings A, Smith P (2012) An optimization model for energy crop supply. Gcb Bioenergy 4(1):88–95

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wildemeersch S, Goderniaux P, Orban P, Brouyère S, Dassargues A (2014) Assessing the effects of spatial discretization on large-scale flow model performance and prediction uncertainty. J Hydrol 510:10–25

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ye M, Neuman SP, Meyer PD (2004) Maximum likelihood Bayesian averaging of spatial variability models in unsaturated fractured tuff. Water Resour Res. https://doi.org/10.1029/2003WR002557

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ye M, Meyer PD, Neuman SP (2008a) On model selection criteria in multimodel analysis. Water Resour Res. https://doi.org/10.1029/2008WR006803

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ye M, Pohlmann KF, Chapman JB (2008b) Expert elicitation of recharge model probabilities for the death valley regional flow system. J Hydrol 354(1–4):102–115

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ye M, Pohlmann KF, Chapman JB, Pohll GM, Reeves DM (2010) A model-averaging method for assessing groundwater conceptual model uncertainty. Groundwater 48(5):716–728

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Water Research Institute (WRI), Tehran, Tehran Province, Iran

    Saeideh Samani

  2. Department of Civil and Resource Engineering, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada

    Saeideh Samani

Authors
  1. Saeideh Samani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Saeideh Samani.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The author declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Additional information

Edited by Dr. Khabat Khosravi (ASSOCIATE EDITOR) / Prof. Jochen Aberle (CO-EDITOR-IN-CHIEF).

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Samani, S. Illuminating groundwater flow modeling uncertainty through spatial discretization and complexity exploration. Acta Geophys. (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11600-024-01346-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11600-024-01346-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation