Abstract
Developing an accurate conceptual model is the most important step in the process of a groundwater numerical modeling. Disorganized and limited available data and information, especially in the developing countries, make the preparation of the conceptual model difficult and sometimes cumbersome. In this research, an integrative and comprehensive method is proposed to develop groundwater conceptual model for an unconfined aquifer. The proposed method consists of six steps. A preliminary step (step 0) is aimed at collecting all the available data and information. The output of the first step as “controlling observations” is conceptual model version 00. This step should be rigorously checked due to its critical role in the controlling of final conceptual model. Step 2 determines the aquifer geometry. The output of this step is conceptual model version 01. Step 3 is responsible to determine hydrodynamic properties and its output develops conceptual model version 02. Step 4 evaluates the surface and subsurface interactions and lateral in/out groundwater flows. The output of this step is conceptual model version 03. Step 5 is to integrate the results from other steps and to deliver the final conceptual model version. The accuracy level of the conceptual model and the annual groundwater balance is also determined at this step. The presented groundwater conceptual model procedure was implemented for the Neishaboor plain, Iran. Results showed its usefulness and practicality in developing the conceptual model for the study area.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Ahuja LR, Cassel DK, Bruce RR, Barnes BB (1989) Evaluation of spatial distribution of hydraulic conductivity using effective porosity data. Soil Sci 148:404–411
Allison GB, Barnes CJ, Hughes MW, Leany IWJ (1984) Effects of climate and vegetation on oxygen-18 and deuterium profiles in soils. In: Isotope hydrology. International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, pp 105–123
Anderson MP, Woessner WW (1992) Applied groundwater modeling, simulation of flow and advective transport. Academic, San Diego
Barazzuoli P, Nocchi M, Rigati R, Salleolini M (2008) A conceptual and numerical model for groundwater management: a case study on a coastal aquifer in southern Tuscany, Italy. Hydrogeol J 16:1557–1576. doi:10.1007/s10040-008-0324-z
Bedekar V, Niswonger RG, Kipp K, Panday S, Tonkin M (2012) Approaches to the simulation of unconfined flow and perched groundwater flow in MODFLOW. Ground Water 187–198
Bredehoeft J (2003) From models performance assessment: the conceptualization problem. Ground Water 41(5):571–577. doi:10.1111/j.1745-6584.2003.tb02395.x
Bredehoeft J (2005) The conceptualization model problem—surprise. Hydrogeol J 13(1):37–46. doi:10.1007/s10040-004-0430-5
Bredehoeft J, Hall P (1995) Ground-water models. Ground Water 33:530–531
Bredenkamp DB, Botha LJ, Van Tonder GJ, Van Rensburg HJ (1995) Manual on quantitative estimation of groundwater recharge and aquifer storativity. WRC Report No TT 73/95
Carrera J, Neuman SP (1986a) Estimation of aquifer parameters under transient and steady state conditions: 1. Maximum likelihood method incorporating prior information. Water Resour Res 22(2):199–210. doi:10.1029/WR022i002p00199
Carrera J, Neuman SP (1986b) Estimation of aquifer parameters under transient and steady state conditions: 2. Uniqueness, stability, and solution algorithms. Water Resour Res 22(2):211–227. doi:10.1029/WR022i002p00211
Carrera J, Alcolea A, Medina A, Hidalgo J, Slooten L (2005) Inverse problem in hydrogeology. Hydrogeol J 13(1):206–222. doi:10.1007/s10040-004-0404-7
Dewandel B, Gandolfi JM, de Condappa D, Ahmed S (2008) An efficient methodology for estimating irrigation return flow coefficients of irrigated crops at watershed and seasonal scale. Hydrol Process 22:1700–1712
Egboka BCE, Uma KO (1986) Comparative analysis of transmissivity and hydraulic conductivity values from the Ajali aquifer system of Nigeria. J Hydrol 83:185–196
English PM, Lewis SJ, Dyall A, Sandow J, Coram JE (2007) 3D groundwater conceptual model pilot project. Feasibility report for the condamine alliance. Geoscience Australia, Queensland
EPA, DOE, NRC, (1994) A technical guide to ground-water model selection at sites contaminated with radioactive substances, EPA 402-R-94-012, Washington, DC
Freeze R (1975) A stochastic–conceptual analysis of one–dimensional groundwater flow in non–uniform, homogeneous media. Water Resour Res 11(5):725–741
Gelhar LW (1986) Stochastic subsurface hydrology from theory to applications. Water Resour Res 22(9):135S–145S
Gerla PJ, Matheney RK (1996) Seasonal variability and simulation of groundwater flow in a Prairie Wetland. Hydrol Processes 10:903–920
Gieske ASM (1992) Dynamics of groundwater recharge: a case study in semi-arid eastern Botswana. PhD thesis, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, 289 pp
Gillespie J, Nelson ST, Mayo AL, Tingey DG (2012) Why conceptual groundwater flow models matter: a trans-boundary example from the arid Great Basin, western USA. Hydrogeology Journal DOI 10.1007/s10040-012-0848-0
Griffith DH (1976) Application of electrical resistivity measurements for the determination of porosity and permeability in sandstones. Geoexploration 14(3–4):207–213
Hamm SY, Cheong JY, Jang S, Jung CY, Kim BS (2005) Relationship between transmissivity and specific capacity in the volcanic aquifers of Jeju Island, Korea. J Hydrology 310:111–121
Hill M, Cooley R, Pollock D (1998) A controlled experiment in ground water flow model calibration. Ground Water 36(3):520–535. doi:10.1111/j.1745-6584.1998.tb02824.x
Højberg A, Refsgaard J (2005) Model uncertainty—parameter uncertainty versus conceptual models. Water Sci Technol 52(6):177–186
Izady A, Davari k, Ghahraman B, Alizadeh A, Sadeghi M, Moghaddamnia A (2012) Application of panel-data modeling to predict groundwater levels in the Neishaboor Plain, Iran. Hydrogeol J 20(3):435–447. doi:10.1007/s10040-011-0814-2
Jabro JD (1992) Estimation of saturated hydraulic conductivity of soils from particle size distribution and bulk density data. Trans ASAE 35:557–560
Johnson AI (1967) Specific yield-compilation of specific yields for various materials. U.S. Geological Survey, Water Supply Paper 1662-D, 74 p.
Jusseret S, Tam VT, Dassargues A (2009) Groundwater flow modelling in the central zone of Hanoi, Vietnam. Hydrogeol J 17:915–934. doi:10.1007/s10040-008-0423-x
Kelly WE (1977) Geoelectric sounding for estimating aquifer hydraulic conductivity. Ground Water 15(6):420–425
Lohman SW (1972) Ground-water hydraulics. US Geol Surv Prof Paper 708:45–46
Louis I, Karantonis G, Voulgaris N, Louis F (2004) Geophysical methods in the determination of aquifer parameters: the case of Mornos river delta, Greece. Res J Chem Environ 18(4):41–49
Meinzer OE (1923) The occurrence of groundwater in the United States with a discussion of principles. US Geol Surv Water-Supply Pap 489, 321 pp
Meinzer OE, Stearns ND (1929) A study of groundwater in the Pomperaug Basin, Conn. with special reference to intake and discharge. US Geol Surv Water-Supply Pap 597B:73–146
Meyer PD, Gee GW (1999) Groundwater conceptual models of dose assessment codes. Presented at U.S. NRC Workshop on Ground-Water Modeling Related to Dose Assessment, Rockville, Maryland
Meyer P, Ye M, Rockhold M, Neuman S, Cantrell K. (2007) Combined estimation of hydrogeologic conceptual model parameter and scenario uncertainty with application to uranium transport at the Hanford site 300 area, Rep. NUREG/CR-6940 PNNL-16396, U.S. Nucl. Regul. Comm., Washington, D. C.
Moore C, Doherty J (2005) Role of the calibration process in reducing model predictive error. Water Resour Res 41, W05020, doi:10.1029/2004WR003501
Nastev M, Rivera A, Lefebvre R, Martel R, Savard M (2005) Numerical simulation of groundwater flow in regional rock aquifers, southwestern Quebec, Canada. Hydrogeol J 13:835–848. doi:10.1007/s10040-005-0445-6
Neuman SP (1988) A proposed conceptual framework and methodology for investigating flow and transport in Swedish crystalline rocks. SKB Swedish Nuclear Fuel and Waste Management Co., Stockholm, September, Arbetsrapport 88-37, 39 pp
Neuman S (2003) Maximum likelihood Bayesian averaging of uncertain model predictions. Stoch Environ Res Risk Assess 17(5):291–305. doi:10.1007/s00477-003-0151-7
Neuman S, Wierenga P. (2003) A comprehensive strategy of hydrogeologic modeling and uncertainty analysis for nuclear facilities and sites, Rep. NUREG/CR-6805, U.S. Nucl. Regul. Comm., Washington, DC
Neuman SP, Wierenga PJ (2003) A comprehensive strategy of hydrogeologic modeling and uncertainty analysis for nuclear facilities and sites. NUREG/CR-6805, prepared for US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC
Palma HC, Bentley LR (2007) A regional-scale groundwater flow model for the Leon–Chinandega aquifer, Nicaragua. Hydrogeol J 15:1457–1472. doi:10.1007/s10040-007-0197-6
Pinder GF, Celia MA (2006) Subsurface hydrology. Wiley, Hoboken
Poeter E, Anderson D (2005) Multimodel ranking and inference in ground water modeling. Ground Water 43(4):597–605. doi:10.1111/j.1745-6584.2005.0061.x
Razack M, Huntley D (1991) Assessing transmissivity from specific capacity in a large and heterogeneous alluvial aquifer. Ground Water 29(6):856–861
Refsgaard J, Van der Sluijs J, Brown J, Van der Keur P (2006) A framework for dealing with uncertainty due to model structure error. Adv Water Resour 29(11):1586–1597. doi:10.1016/j.advwatres.2005.11.013
Reilly TE, (2001) System and boundary conceptualization in ground-water flow simulation. Techniques of water-resources investigations of the U.S. Geological Survey, Book 3, Applications of Hydraulics, Chapter B8, Reston, Virginia
Rojas R, Feyen L, Dassargues A (2008) Conceptual model uncertainty in groundwater modeling: combining generalized likelihood uncertainty estimation and Bayesian model averaging. Water Resour Res 44, W12418, doi:10.1029/2008WR006908
Rojas R, Feyen L, Batelaan O, Dassargues A (2010) On the value of conditioning data to reduce conceptual model uncertainty in groundwater modeling. Water Resour Res, 46, W08520, doi:10.1029/2009WR008822
Rojas R, Kahunde S, Peeters L, Okke B, Feyen L, Dassargues A (2010b) Application of a multimodel approach to account for conceptual model and scenario uncertainties in groundwater modeling. J Hydrol 394:416–435
Scanlon BR, Healy RW, Cook PG (2002) Choosing appropriate techniques for quantifying groundwater recharge. Hydrogeol J 10:18–39. doi:10.1007/s10040-0010176-2
Seifert D, Sonnenberg T, Scharling P, Hinsby K (2008) Use of alternative conceptual models to assess the impact of a buried valley on groundwater vulnerability. Hydrogeol J 16(4):659–674. doi:10.1007/s10040-007-0252-3
Sophocleous M (2002) Interactions between groundwater and surface water: the state of the science. Hydrogeology Journal 10:52–67. doi:10.1007/s10040-001-0170-8
Theis CV, Brown RH, Meyer RR (1963) Estimating the transmissivity of aquifers from the specific capacity of wells. In: R. Bental (ed) Methods of determining permeability, transmissivity, and drawdown. U.S. Geol. Surv. Water Supply Paper 1536-1, pp. 331–340.
Uma KO, Egboka BCE, Onuoha KM (1989) New statistical grain-size method for evaluating the hydraulic conductivity of sandy aquifers. J Hydrol 108:367–386
Vandenberg A (1982) An alternative conceptual model of groundwater flow. J Hydrol 57:187–201
Varni MR, Usunoff EJ (1999) Simulation of regional-scale groundwater flow in the Azul River basin, Buenos Aires Province, Argentina. Hydrogeol J 7:180–187
Velayati S, Tavassloi S (1991) Resources and problems of water in Khorasan province. Astan Ghods Razavi, Mashhad (In Persian)
Wheater, H. S. 2010. Hydrological processes, groundwater recharge and surface–water/groundwater interactions in arid and semi-arid areas. In: Wheater HS, Mathias SA, Li X (eds) Groundwater modeling in arid and semi-arid areas, 1st ed. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 5–37
Xu Y, Beekman HE (2003) Groundwater recharge estimation in Southern Africa. UNESCO IHP Series No. 64, UNESCO Paris. ISBN 92-9220-000-3
Ye M, Karl FP, Jenny BC, Greg MP, Donald MR (2010) A model-averaging method for assessing groundwater conceptual model uncertainty. Ground Water 48(5):716–728
Acknowledgment
We would like to thank Prof. Mary Anderson from the Department of Geoscience of University of Wisconsin for her insightful suggestions and recommendations.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Izady, A., Davary, K., Alizadeh, A. et al. A framework toward developing a groundwater conceptual model. Arab J Geosci 7, 3611–3631 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12517-013-0971-9
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12517-013-0971-9