Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Artificial neural networks vis-à-vis MODFLOW in the simulation of groundwater: a review

  • Review Article
  • Published:
Modeling Earth Systems and Environment Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Although numerical and non-numerical models of groundwater flow and transport have separately been reviewed in several studies, they have not hitherto been reviewed simultaneously. Additionally, few case studies have considered these two models to simulate groundwater. The purpose of this study is to compare MODFLOW and artificial neural networks (ANNs) as the most typical numerical and non-numerical groundwater models, respectively, with placing the emphasis on the review of studies in which both models have been considered. Until the previous decade, MODFLOW was quantitatively used far more than ANNs to simulate groundwater. However, since then, the application of ANNs in groundwater has significantly augmented in comparison with MODFLOW. A thorough understanding of the physical properties of the aquifer along with having accurate and sufficient data are requisite to simulate groundwater using MODFLOW. Moreover, despite existing automatic calibration methods, e.g. PEST, MODFLOW is ordinarily calibrated by trial and error, which is onerous and time-consuming. This model is typically applied to alluvial aquifers, which are assumed to be homogeneous and isotropic. On the other hand, ANNs with a black box approach can simulate groundwater through data excluding aquifer's characteristics, e.g. through utilizing the climatic variables. Therefore, ANNs may straightforwardly be applied to the heterogeneous and anisotropic aquifers, i.e. karst and hard-rock. However, determining the dynamic response of the aquifer may be of central importance despite the formidable challenges related to the application of numerical models. Therefore, they have been selected to simulate the response of the complicated aquifers, especially in recent 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

Similar content being viewed by others

Availability of data and material

Not applicable.

Code availability

Not applicable.

References

  • Affandi KA, Watanabe K, Tirtomihardjo H (2007) Application of an artificial neural network to estimate groundwater level fluctuation. J Spat Hydrol 7(2):1

    Google Scholar 

  • Afzaal H, Farooque AA, Abbas F, Acharya B, Esau T (2020) Groundwater estimation from major physical hydrology components using artificial neural networks and deep learning. Water 12(1):5. https://doi.org/10.3390/w12010005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Al-Aboodi AH, Khudhair KM, Al-Aidani AS (2016) Prediction of groundwater level in Safwan-Zubair area using artificial neural networks. Basrah J Eng Sci 16(1):42–50

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Almuhaylan MR, Ghumman AR, Al-Salamah IS, Ahmad A, Ghazaw YM, Haider H, Shafiquzzaman M (2020) Evaluating the impacts of pumping on aquifer depletion in arid regions using MODFLOW, ANFIS and ANN. Water 12(8):2297. https://doi.org/10.3390/w12082297

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson MP, Woessner WW (1992) Applied groundwater modeling flow and adjective transport. Academic Press, San Diego

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson MP, Woessner WW, Hunt RJ (2015) Applied groundwater modeling: simulation of flow and advective transport. Academic Press, San Diego

    Google Scholar 

  • ASCE Task Committee (2000) Artificial neural networks in hydrology, II: hydrologic applications. J Hydrol Eng 5(2):124–137

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Asher MJ, Croke BFW, Jakeman AJ, Peeters LJM (2015) A review of surrogate models and their application to groundwater modeling. Water Resour Res 51:5957–5973. https://doi.org/10.1002/2015WR016967

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aziz ARA, Wong KFV (1992) A neural network approach to the determination of aquifer parameters. Groundwater 30(2):164–166

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bailey RT, Wible TC, Arabi M, Records RM, Ditty J (2016) Assessing regional-scale spatio-temporal patterns of groundwater–surface water interactions using a coupled SWAT MODFLOW model. Hydrol Process 30:4420–4433. https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.10933

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bailey RT, Park S, Bieger K, Arnold JG, Allen PM (2020) Enhancing SWAT+ simulation of groundwater flow and groundwater–surface water interactions using MODFLOW routines. Environ Model Softw 126(1):104660

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Basheer IA, Hajmeer M (2000) Artificial neural networks: fundamentals, computing, design, and application. J Microbiol Methods 43(1):3–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-7012(00)00201-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Bizhanimanzar M, Leconte R, Nuth M (2019) Modelling of shallow water table dynamics using conceptual and physically based integrated surface-water–groundwater hydrologic models. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 23:2245–2260

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bizhanimanzar M, Leconte R, Nuth M (2020) Catchment-scale integrated surface water-groundwater hydrologic modelling using conceptual and physically based models: a model comparison study. Water 12:363

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cannas B, Fanni A, See L, Sias G (2006) Data preprocessing for river flow forecasting using neural networks: wavelet transforms and partitioning. Phys Chem Earth 31(18):1164–1171

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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):211–217

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carrera J, Neuman SP (1986c) Estimation of aquifer parameters under transient and steady state conditions: 3. Application of synthetic and field data. Water Resour Res 22(2):228–242

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chang H, Zhang D (2019) Machine learning subsurface flow equations from data. Comput Geosci 23:895–910. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10596-019-09847-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen C, He W, Zhou H, Xue Y, Zhu MA (2020) Comparative study among machine learning and numerical models for simulating groundwater dynamics in the Heihe River Basin, northwestern China. Sci Rep 10:3904. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-60698-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chester DL (1990) Why two hidden layers are better than one. In: Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Neural Networks, New Jersey

  • Chitsazan M, Rahmani G, Neyamadpour A (2015) Forecasting groundwater level by artificial neural networks as an alternative approach to groundwater modeling. J Geol Soc India 85:98–106

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chunn D, Faramarzi M, Smerdon B, Alessi DS (2019) Application of an integrated SWAT–MODFLOW model to evaluate potential impacts of climate change and water withdrawals on groundwater–surface water interactions in West-Central Alberta. Water 11(1):110

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooley RL, Christensen S (2006) Bias and uncertainty in regression-calibrated models of groundwater flow in heterogeneous media. Adv Water Resour 29(5):639–656

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coppola EJ, Poulton M, Charles E, Dustman J, Szidarovszky F (2003a) Application of artificial neural networks to complex groundwater management problems. Nat Resour Res 12(4):303–320

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coppola EJ, Szidarovszky F, Poulton M, Charles E (2003b) Artifical neural network approach for predicting transient water levels in a multilayered groundwater system under variable state, pumping, and climate conditions. J Hydrol Eng 8(6):348–360

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coppola E, Rana A, Poulton M, Szidarovszky F, Uhl V (2005) A neural network model for predicting aquifer water level elevations. Groundwater 43(2):231–241

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daliakopoulos IN, Coulibaly P, Tsanis IK (2005) Groundwater level forecasting using artificial neural networks. J Hydrol 309:229–240

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daniel EB, Camp JV, LeBoeuf EJ, Penrod JR, Dobbins JP, Abkowitz MD (2011) Watershed modeling and its applications: a state-of-the-art review. Open Hydrol J 5:26–50

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Das UK, Roy P, Ghose DK (2019) Modeling water table depth using adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system. ISH J Hydraul Eng 25:291–297

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dash NB, Panda SN, Remesan R, Sahoo N (2010) Hybrid neural modeling for groundwater level prediction. Neural Comput Appl 19:1251–1263. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-010-0360-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dawson DW, Wilby R (2001) Hydrological modelling using artificial neural networks. Prog Phys Geogr 25(1):80–108

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dawson CW, Abrahart RJ, Shamseldin AY, Wilby RL (2006) Flood estimation at ungauged sites using artificial neural networks. J Hydrol 319:391–409

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Vos NJ, Rientjes THM (2005) Constraints of artificial neural networks for rainfall-runoff modelling: trade-offs in hydrological state representation and model evaluation. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 9:111–126

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deb P, Kiem AS, Willgoose G (2019) A linked surface water-groundwater modelling approach to more realistically simulate rainfall-runoff non-stationarity in semi-arid regions. J Hydrol 575:273–291. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2019.05.039

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Demissie Y, Valocchi AJ, Minsker BS, Bailey B (2008) Bias-corrected groundwater model prediction uncertainty analysis. In: Calibration and reliability in groundwater modelling: credibility of modelling. Proceedings of ModelCARE 2007 conference, held in Denmark, September 2007. IAHS Publications, Denmark, p 320

  • Demissie Y, Valocchi AJ, Minsker BS, Bailey B (2009) Integrating physically-based groundwater flow models with error-correcting data-driven models to improve predictions. J Hydrol 364(3–4):257–271

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Devarajan K, Sindhu G (2015) Application of numerical and empirical models for groundwater level forecasting. Int J Res Eng Technol 4(11):127–133

    Google Scholar 

  • Diaz M, Sinicyn G, Grodzka-Łukaszewska M (2020) Modelling of groundwater–surface water interaction applying the hyporheic flux model. Water 12(12):3303

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Djurovic N, Domazet M, Stricevic R, Pocuca V, Spalevic V, Pivic R, Gregoric E, Domazet U (2015) Comparison of groundwater level models based on artificial neural networks and ANFIS. Sci World J 2015(2):742138. https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/742138

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doherty JE, Hunt RJ (2010) Approaches to highly parameterized inversion: a guide to using PEST for groundwater-model calibration. US Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2010-5169, p 60

  • Duran L, Gill L (2021) Modeling spring flow of an Irish karst catchment using Modflow-USG with CLN. J Hydrol 597:125971

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ebrahimi H, Rajaee T (2017) Simulation of groundwater level variations using wavelet combined with neural network, linear regression and support vector machine. Glob Planet Change 148:181–191

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Emamgholizadeh S, Moslemi K, Karami G (2014) Prediction the groundwater level of Bastam plain (Iran) by artificial neural network (ANN) and adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system (ANFIS). Water Resour Manag 28:5433–5446

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Faraway J, Chatfield C (1998) Time series forecasting with neural networks: a comparative study using the airline data. J Appl Stat 47(2):231–250

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeze RA, Cherry JA (1979) Groundwater. Prentice-Hall, Hoboken

    Google Scholar 

  • Galbiati L, Bouraoui F, Elorza FJ, Bidoglio G (2006) Modeling diffuse pollution loading into a Mediterranean lagoon: development and application of an integrated surface-subsurface model tool. Ecol Model 193(1–2):4–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2005.07.036

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gannett MW, Wagner BJ, Lite KEJ (2012) Groundwater simulation and management models for the upper Klamath Basin, Oregon and California. US Geological Survey Scientific Investigations, Report no. 2012-5062

  • Gelhar L (1993) Stochastic subsurface hydrology. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey

    Google Scholar 

  • Gill LW, Schuler P, Duran L, Morrissey P, Johnston PM (2021) An evaluation of semidistributed-pipe-network and distributed-finite-difference models to simulate karst systems. Hydrogeol J 29:259–279. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10040-020-02241-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gong Y, Zhang Y, Lan S, Wang H (2016) A comparative study of artificial neural networks, support vector machines and adaptive neuro fuzzy inference system for forecasting groundwater levels near Lake Okeechobee, Florida. Water Resour Manag 30:375–391. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-015-1167-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gosses M, Wohling T (2019) Simplification error analysis for groundwater predictions with reduced order models. Adv Water Resour 125:41–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advwatres.2019.01.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graupe D (2007) Principles of artificial neural networks. World Scientific Publishing Company, Singapore

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Grodzka-Łukaszewska M, Nawalany M, Zijl W (2017) A velocity-oriented approach for Modflow. Transp Porous Med 119(2):373–390

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guzman JA, Moriasi DN, Gowda PH, Steiner JL, Starks PJ, Arnold JG, Srinivasav R (2015) A model integration framework for linking SWAT and MODFLOW. Environ Model Softw 73:103–116

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hagan MT, Demuth HB, Beale MH, Jessus OD (2014) Neural network design. Martin Hagan, p 800

  • Han X, Lu R, Li Q (1993) Karst water system—case study of big karst springs in Shanxi province. Geological Publishing House, Beijing (in Chinese)

    Google Scholar 

  • Hartmann A, Goldscheider N, Wagener T, Lange J, Weiler M (2014) Karst water resources in a changing world: review of hydrological modeling approaches. Rev Geophys 52(3):218–242

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hsu KL, Gupta HV, Sorooshian S (1995) Artifical neural network modelling of the rainfall-runoff process. Water Resour Res 31(10):2517–2530

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hu C, Hao Y, Yeh TCJ, Pang B, Wu Z (2008) Simulation of spring flows from a karst aquifer with an artificial neural network. Hydrol Process 22(5):596–604

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jain A, Sudheer KP, Srinivasulu S (2004) Identification of physical processes inherent in artifical neural network rainfall runoff models. Hydrol Process 18(3):571–581

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jakeman AJ, Hornberger GM (1993) How much complexity is warranted in a rainfall runoff model? Water Resour Res 29:2637–2649

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jassim DJ (2012) Artificial neutal network for predicting the performance of reverse osmosis desolation plants. Dissertation, University of Basrah

  • Kaastra I, Boyd MS (1995) Forecasting futures trading volume using neural networks. J Futures Mark 15(8):953–970

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karki R, Srivastava P, Kalin L, Mitra S, Singh S (2021) Assessment of impact in groundwater levels and stream–aquifer interaction due to increased groundwater withdrawal in the lower Apalachicola–Chattahoochee–Flint (ACF) River Basin using MODFLOW. J Hydrol Reg Stud 34:100802. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrh.2021.100802

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kavousi A, Reimann T, Liedl R, Raeisi E (2020) Karst aquifer characterization by inverse application of MODFLOW-2005 CFPv2 discrete-continuum flow and transport model. J Hydrol 587:124922. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2020.124922

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khalil M, Panu US, Lennox WC (2001) Groups and neural networks based streamflow data infilling procedures. J Hydrol 241:153–176

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khedri A, Kalantari N, Vadiati M (2020) Comparison study of artificial intelligence method for short term groundwater level prediction in the northeast Gachsaran unconfined aquifer. Water Supply 20:909–921

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim NW, Chung M, Won YS, Arnold JG (2008) Development and application of the integrated SWAT-MODFLOW model. J Hydrol 356(1–2):1–16

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kohzadi N, Boyd M, Kaastra I, Kermanshahi B, Scuse D (1995) Neural networks for forecasting: an introduction. Can J Agric Econ 43:463–474

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kresic N, Panday S (2017) Numerical groundwater modelling in karst. Advances in karst research: theory, fieldwork and applications. Geol Soc London Spec Publ 466:319–330

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lachtermacher G, Fuller JD (1994) Backpropagation in hydrological time series forecasting. In: Hipel KW, McLeod AI, Panu US, Singh VP (eds) Stochastic and statistical methods in hydrology and environmental engineering. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp 229–242

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Lallahem S, Mania J, Hani A, Najjar Y (2005) On the use of neural networks to evaluate groundwater levels in fractured media. J Hydrol 307:92–111

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lancia M, Petitta M, Zheng C, Saroli M (2020) Hydrogeological insights and modelling for sustainable use of a stressed carbonate aquifer in the Mediterranean area: from passive withdrawals to active management. J Hydrol Reg Stud 32:100749. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrh.2020.100749

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luke KC, Ball JE, Sharma A (2000) Groups and neural networks based streamflow data infilling procedures. J Hydrol 227:56–65

    Google Scholar 

  • Lynch DR (1984) Mass conservation in finite element groundwater models. Adv Water Resour 7:67–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/0309-1708(84)90003-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ma T, Wang Y, Guo Q (2004) Response of carbonate aquifer to climate change in northern China: a case study at the Shentou karst springs. J Hydrol 297(1–4):274–284

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Malekzadeh M, Kardar S, Shabanlou S (2019) Simulation of groundwater level using MODFLOW, extreme learning machine and Wavelet-Extreme Learning Machine models. Groundw Sustain Dev 9:100279. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gsd.2019.100279

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McDonald MG, Harbaugh AW (1983) A modular three-dimensional finite-difference groundwater flow model. US Geological Survey, Open-File Report 83-875

  • McDonald MG, Harbaugh AW (1988) A modular three-dimensional finite-difference groundwater flow model. United States Government Printing Office (USGPO), Washington, DC

  • Mekonnen BA, Nazemi A, Mazurek KA, Elshorbagy A, Putz G (2015) Hybrid modelling approach to prairie hydrology: fusing data-driven and process-based hydrological models. Hydrol Sci J 60:1473–1489. https://doi.org/10.1080/02626667.2014.935778

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mo S, Zhu Y, Zabaras N, Shi X, Wu J (2019) Deep convolutional encoder-decoder networks for uncertainty quantification of dynamic multiphase flow in heterogeneous media. Water Resour Res 55:703–728. https://doi.org/10.1029/2018WR023528

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moeck C, Brunner P, Hunkeler D (2016) The influence of model structure on groundwater recharge rates in climate-change impact studies. Hydrogeol J 24(5):1171–1184

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moghaddam HK, Moghaddam HK, Kivi ZR, Bahreinimotlagh M, Alizadeh MJ (2019) Developing comparative mathematic models, BN and ANN for forecasting of groundwater levels. Groundw Sustain Dev 9(2):100237

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mohammadi K (2009) Groundwater table estimation using MODFLOW and artificial neural networks. Practical hydroinformatics: computational intelligence and technological developments in water applications. Water science and technology library book series. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 127–138

    Google Scholar 

  • Mohanty S, Jha MK, Kumar A, Panda DK (2013) Comparative evaluation of numerical model and artificial neural network for simulating groundwater flow in Kathajodi-Surua Inter-basin of Odisha, India. J Hydrol 495:38–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2013.04.041

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moore C, Doherty J (2005) The role of the calibration process in reducing model predictive error. Water Resour Res 41:W05020

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nakhaei M, Saberinasr A (2012) Groundwater level forecasting using wavelet-artificial neural network and its comparison with MODFLOW numerical model in Qorveh plain. J Adv Appl Geol 2(2):47–58 (In Persian)

    Google Scholar 

  • Nassery HR, Salami H (2016) Identifying vulnerable areas of aquifer under future climate change (case study: Hamadan aquifer, West Iran). Arab J Geosci 9(8):518

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nassery HR, Zeydalinejad N, Alijani F, Shakiba A (2021) A proposed modelling towards the potential impacts of climate change on a semi-arid, small-scaled aquifer: a case study of Iran. Environ Monit Assess 193:182. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-021-08955-w

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nawalany M, Sinicyn G, Grodzka-Łukaszewska M, Mirosław-Świątek D (2020) Groundwater–surface water interaction—analytical approach. Water 12(6):1792

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nourani V, Mousavi S, Sadikoglu F, Singh VP (2017) Experimental and AI-based numerical modeling of contaminant transport in porous media. J Contam Hydrol 205:78–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jconhyd.2017.09.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ollivier C, Mazzilli N, Olioso A, Chalikakis K, Carrière SD, Danquigny C, Emblanch C (2019) Karst recharge–discharge semi distributed model to assess spatial variability of flows. Sci Total Environ 703:134368

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pan CC, Chen YW, Chang LC, Huang CW (2016) Developing a conjunctive use optimization model for allocating surface and subsurface water in an off-stream artificial lake system. Water 8(8):315. https://doi.org/10.3390/w8080315

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Panahi P, Sadhasivam N, PourghasemI HR, Rezaie F, Lee S (2020) Spatial prediction of groundwater potential mapping based on convolutional neural network (CNN) and support vector regression (SVR). J Hydrol 572:435–448

    Google Scholar 

  • Panday S, Langevin CD, Niswonger RG, Ibaraki M, Hughes JD (2013) USG version 1: an unstructured grid version of MODFLOW for simulating groundwater flow and tightly coupled processes using a control volume finite-difference formulation. US Geological Survey Techniques Methods 6-A45, Report no. vii. https://doi.org/10.3133/tm6A45

  • Parkin G, Birkinshaw SJ, Younger PL, Rao Z, Kirk S (2007) A numerical modelling and neural network approach to estimate the impact of groundwater abstractions on river flows. J Hydrol 339(1–2):15–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2007.01.041

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perkins SP, Sophocleous M (1999) Development of a comprehensive watershed model applied to study stream yield under drought conditions. Groundwater 37(3):418–426. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6584.1999.tb01121.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pujades E, Carrera J, Vázquez-Suñé E, Jurado A, Vilarrasa V, Mascuñano-Salvador E (2012) Hydraulic characterization of diaphragm walls for cut and cover tunneling. Eng Geol 125:1–10

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pujades E, Jurado A, Carrera J, Vázquez-Suñé E, Dassargues A (2016) Hydrogeological assessment of non-linear underground enclosures. Eng Geol 207:91–102

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Radmanesh F, Golabi MR, Khodabakhshi F, Farzi S, Zeinali M (2020) Modeling aquifer hydrograph: performance review of conceptual MODFLOW and simulator models. Arab J Geosci 13:240. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12517-020-5230-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rajaee T, Ebrahimi H, Nourani V (2019) A review of the artificial intelligence methods in groundwater level modeling. J Hydrol 572:336–351. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2018.12.037

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rajurkar MP, Kothyari UC, Chaube UC (2004) Modeling of the daily rainfall-runoff relationship with artificial neural network. J Hydrol 285:96–113

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ranjithan S, Eheart JW, Garrett JH Jr (1993) Neural network-based screening for groundwater reclamation under uncertainty. Water Resour Res 29(3):563–574

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Refsgaard JC (1996) Model and data requirements for simulation of runoff and land surface processes in relation to global circulation models. In: Sorooshian S, Gupta H, Rodda J (eds) Global environmental change and land surface processes in hydrology: the trial and tribulations of modelling and measuring. Springer-Verlag, New York, pp 423–445

    Google Scholar 

  • Rizzo DM, Dougherty DE (1994) Characterization of aquifer properties using artificial neural networks: neural kriging. Water Resour Res 30(2):483–497

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rohmat F, Labadie JW, Gates TK (2018) Computationally efficient ANN as a realistic surrogate of MODFLOW-UZF for integration with the GeoMODSIM river basin management model. In: 9th International Congress on Environmental Modelling and Software, Ft. Collins, Colorado

  • Rosenblatt F (1957) The perceptron—a perceiving and recognizing automaton. Cornell Aeronautical Laboratory, Report no. 85-460-1

  • Sahoo S, Russo TA, Elliott J, Foster I (2017) Machine learning algorithms for modeling groundwater level changes in agricultural regions of the US. Water Resour Res 53:3878–3895

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sahoo BB, Jha R, Singh A, Kumar D (2019) Long short-term memory (LSTM) recurrent neural network for low-flow hydrological time series forecasting. Acta Geophys 67:1471–1481. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11600-019-00330-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sajikumar N, Thandaveswara BS (1999) A non-linear rainfall-runoff model using an artifical neural network. J Hydrol 216:32–55

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sanford WE (2002) Recharge and groundwater models: an overview. Hydrogeol J 10:110–120

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sanginabadi H, Saghafian B, Delavar M (2019) Coupled groundwater drought and water scarcity index for intensively overdrafted aquifers. J Hydrol Eng 24(4):04019003. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)HE.1943-5584.0001764

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sarle WS (1995) Stopped training and other remedies for over-fitting. In: Proceedings of the 27th Symposium on the Interface of Computing Science and Statistics, The Interface Foundation of North America, Pittsburgh, pp 352–360

  • Sattari MT, Yurekli K, Pal M (2012) Performance evaluation of artificial neural network approaches in forecasting reservoir inflow. Appl Math Model 36:2649–2657

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scanlon BR, Levitt DG, Reedy RC, Keese KE, Sully MJ (2005) Ecological controls on water-cycle response to climate variability in deserts. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 102:6033–6038

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schaap MG, Bouten W (1996) Modeling water retention curves of sandy soils using neural networks. Water Resour Res 32(10):3033–3040

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sethi RR, Kumar A, Sharma SP, Verma HC (2010) Prediction of water table depth in a hard rock basin by using artificial neural network. Int J Water Res Environ Eng 2(4):95–102

    Google Scholar 

  • Shah S, Ghasemi Damavandi H, Huang L, Stampoulis D, Shah R, Tsai Y, Sabo JL, Boscovic D (2018) Artificial intelligence as an efficient alternative to the conventional hydrological modelling for groundwater forecasting. American Geophysical Union (AGU) Fall Meeting Abstracts

  • Shamseldin AY (1997) Application of a network technique to rainfall-runoff modeling. J Hydrol 199:272–294

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shen C, Laloy E, Elshorbagy A, Albert A, Bales J, Chang FJ, Ganguly S, Hsu KL, Kifer D, Fang Z, Fang K, Li D, Li X, Tsai WP (2018) HESS opinions: incubating deep-learning-powered hydrologic science advances as a community. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 22:5639–5656. https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-22-5639-2018

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sirhan H, Koch M (2012) Prediction of dynamic groundwater levels in the Gaza coastal aquifer, south Palestine, using artificial neural networks. Department of Geohydraulics and Engineering Hydrology, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Kassel University. Working paper available via DIALOG. http://www.uni-kassel.de/fb14/geohydraulik/koch/paper/2013/Hasan_ANN_Paper.pdf. Accessed 18 Apr 2021

  • Sivakumar B, Jayawardena AW, Fernando TMKG (2002) River flow forecasting: use of phase-space reconstruction and artificial neural networks approaches. J Hydrol 265:225–245

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smiatek G, Kaspar S, Kunstmann HJ (2013) Hydrological climate change impact analysis for the Figeh Spring near Damascus, Syria. J Hydrol 14(2):577–593

    Google Scholar 

  • Supreetha BS, Shenoy N, Nayak P (2020) Lion algorithm-optimized long short-term memory network for groundwater level forecasting in Udupi District, India. Appl Comput Intell Soft Comput. https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/8685724

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tapoglou E, Trichakis IC, Dokou Z, Nikolos IK, Karatzas GP (2014) Groundwater-level forecasting under climate change scenarios using an artificial neural network trained with particle swarm optimization. Hydrol Sci J 59(6):1225–1239

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tayfur G, Swiatek D, Wita A, Singh VP (2005) Case study: finite element method and artificial neural network models for flow through Jeziorsko earthfill dam in Poland. J Hydraul Eng 131(6):431–440

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trefry MG, Muffels C (2007) FEFLOW: a finite-element groundwater flow and transport modeling tool. Groundwater 45(5):525–528

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trichakis IC, Nikolos IK, Karatzas MA (2011) Artificial neural network (ANN) based modeling for karstic groundwater level simulation. Water Resour Manag 25(4):1143–1152

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Twumasi F (2018) Applying MODFLOW and artificial neural networks to model the formation of mine pools in underground coal mines. Dissertation, Ohio University

  • Uddameri V (2007) Using statistical and artificial neural network models to forecast potentiometric levels at a deep well in South Texas. Environ Geol 51(6):885–895

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vu TD, Ni CF, Li WC, Truong MH, Hsu SM (2021) Predictions of groundwater vulnerability and sustainability by an integrated index-overlay method and physical-based numerical model. J Hydrol 596:126082. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2021.126082

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winston RB (1999) MODFLOW-related freeware and shareware resources on the internet. Comput Geosci 25:377–382

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woods JA, Teubner MD, Simmons C, Narayan KA (2003) Numerical error in groundwater flow and solute transport simulation. Water Resour Res 39(6):1158

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wu JC, Zeng XK (2013) Review of the uncertainty analysis of groundwater numerical. Chi Sci Bull 58:3044–3052

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wunsch A, Liesch T, Broda S (2018) Forecasting groundwater levels using nonlinear autoregressive networks with exogenous input (NARX). J Hydrol 567:743–758

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xi C, Cai C, Qingqing H, Zhicai Z, Peng S (2008) Simulation of rainfall-underground outflow responses of a karstic watershed in Southwest China with an artificial neural network. Water Sci Eng 1(2):1–9. https://doi.org/10.3882/j.issn.1674-2370.2008.02.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xiong LH, Guo SL, Pang B, Jiang GB (2003) Study of three real-time flood forecasting schemes based on the neural network. Hydrol 23(5):1–4 ((in Chinese))

    Google Scholar 

  • Xu T, Valocchi AJ (2015) Data-driven methods to improve baseflow prediction of a regional groundwater model. Comput Geosci 85:124–136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cageo.2015.05.016

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yang C, Samper J, Molinero J, Bonilla M (2007) Modelling geochemical and microbial consumption of dissolved oxygen after backfilling a high level radioactive waste repository. J Contam Hydrol 93:130–148

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yang Z, Hu L, Sun K (2021) The potential impacts of a water transfer project on the groundwater system in the Sugan Lake Basin of China. Hydrogeol J 29(4):1485–1499

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yoon H, Jun S, Hyun Y, Bae G, Lee K (2011) A comparative study of artificial neural networks and support vector machines for predicting groundwater levels in a coastal aquifer. J Hydrol 396:128–138

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zare M, Ghafouri HR, Safavi HR (2021) Comparative evaluation of numerical model and artificial neural network for quantity and quality simulation of Najafabad aquifer. Water Soil Sci 31(1):75–87 (In Persian)

    Google Scholar 

  • Zeinalie M, Golabi M, Niksokhan M, Azari A (2019) Studying the performance of the modflow conceptual model, and meta simulator model of gene expression in hydrograph modeling of aquifer (case study: Lour-Andimeshk plain). Hydrogeol 3(2):33–45 (In Persian)

    Google Scholar 

  • Zeydalinejad N (2020) Climate change impacts on groundwater resources in Lali region, southwest Iran. Dissertation, Shahid Beheshti University

  • Zeydalinejad N, Nassery HR, Shakiba A, Alijani F (2020a) Prediction of the karstic spring flow rates under climate change by climatic variables based on the artificial neural network: a case study of Iran. Environ Monit Assess 192:375. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-020-08332-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zeydalinejad N, Nassery HR, Shakiba A, Alijani F (2020b) Simulation of karst aquifer water level under climate change in Lali region, Khouzestan Province, SW Iran. Nivar 44(108–109):97–109. https://doi.org/10.30467/nivar.2020b.106355

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zeydalinejad N, Nassery HR, Alijani F, Shakiba A (2020c) Forecasting the resilience of Bibitarkhoun karst spring, southwest Iran, to the future climate change. Model Earth Syst Environ 6:2359–2375. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40808-020-00819-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang J, Zhu Y, Zhang X, Ye M, Yang J (2018) Developing a long short-term memory (LSTM) based model for predicting water table depth in agricultural areas. J Hydrol 561:918–929. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2018.04.065

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang A, Winterle J, Yang C (2020) Performance comparison of physical process-based and data-driven models: a case study on the Edwards Aquifer, USA. Hydrogeol J 28:2025–2037. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10040-020-02169-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhou Y, Li W (2011) A review of regional groundwater flow modeling. Geosci Front 2:205–214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gsf.2011.03.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhou T, Wang F, Yang Z (2017) Comparative analysis of ANN and SVM models combined with wavelet preprocess for groundwater depth prediction. Water 9:1–21. https://doi.org/10.3390/w9100781

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank the Editor, i.e. Professor Md. Nazrul Islam, and the anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments on the earlier manuscript, which lead to an improvement of the article. In addition, Dr. Mahboube Shahsavar, Ph.D. graduate of University of Tehran, is highly appreciated for editing the English language of the manuscript.

Funding

The author did not receive support from any organization for the submitted work.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Minerals and Groundwater Resources, School of Earth Sciences, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran

    Nejat Zeydalinejad

Authors
  1. Nejat Zeydalinejad
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

This study has thoroughly been conducted by Nejat Zeydalinejad.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nejat Zeydalinejad.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

None.

Ethics approval

Not applicable.

Consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Zeydalinejad, N. Artificial neural networks vis-à-vis MODFLOW in the simulation of groundwater: a review. Model. Earth Syst. Environ. 8, 2911–2932 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40808-022-01365-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40808-022-01365-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation