Engineering Approach

Chapter
Part of the SpringerBriefs in Earth Sciences book series (BRIEFSEARTH)

Abstract

In 1992, the journal Advances in Water Resources published a series of papers on validation of hydrogeological models. In one of those papers, Konikow and Bredehoeft (1992) hold that groundwater models cannot be validated but only invalidated. This means that the real quality of a model can be judged only by comparing the prediction produced by the model with what actually occurred, only based on post audit, and that accurate results in the process of model calibration do not warrant that the model will predict accurately.

Keywords

Geological Model Real Quality Hydrogeological Model Artesian Aquifer Engineering Confidence 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Anderson PF, Lu S (2003) A post audit of a model-designed ground extraction system. Ground Water 41(2):212–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson MP, Woessner WW (1992) The role of the postaudit in model validation. Adv Water Res 15:167–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bear J (1972) Dynamics of fluid in porous media. Elsevier, New York, p 764Google Scholar
  4. Beven K (1981) Kinematic subsurface stormflow. Water Resour Res 17(5):1419–1424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Beven K (2005) On the concept of model structural error. Water Sci Technol 52(6):167–175 (IWA Publishing)Google Scholar
  6. Bredehoeft J (2005) The conceptualization model problem-surprise. Hydrol J 13:37–46 (Springer-Verlag)Google Scholar
  7. De Marsily G, Combes P, Golbert P (1992) Comments on “Ground-water models cannot be validated”, by Konikow L.F and Bredehoeft JD, Adv Water Res 15:367–369Google Scholar
  8. Geschwind C-H (1997) 1920s Prediction reveals some pitfalls of earthquake forecasting. EOS 78(38):401, 410, 412CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Haitjema HM (1995) Analytic element modeling of ground flow. Academic, San Diego, p 394Google Scholar
  10. Hanks TC (1997) Imperfect science: uncertainty, diversity, and experts. EOS 78(35):369, 373, 377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kerr RA (1993) Looking-deeply-into the earth’s crust in Europe. Science 261:295–297 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kola (1984) Kola super-deep, studies of continental crust deep structure by boring kola super-deep bore (Кoльcкaя Cвepx Глyбoкaя. Иccлeдoвaния Глyбoкoгo Cтpoeния Кoнтинeнтaльнoй Кopы Бypeниeм Кoльcкoй Cвepx Глyбoкoй Cквaжины), Moscow, Nedra, p 499 (in Russian)Google Scholar
  13. Konikow LF, Bredehoeft JD (1992) Ground-water models cannot be validated. Adv Water Res 15(2):75–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lerner DN (1985) Are ground water models misleading? Adv.Water-Eng. In: Proceedings of the international symposium, Birmingham, pp 124–128, 15–19 July 1985Google Scholar
  15. Levy JR (1973) In: Gillispie CC (ed) Le Verrier, dictionary of scientific biographies, vol 8. New YorkGoogle Scholar
  16. McCombie C, McKinley I (1993) Validation—another perspective. Ground Water 31(4):530–531CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Morton A (1993) Mathematical models: questions of trustworthiness. Br J Phil Sci 44:659–674CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Muskat M (1946) The flow of homogeneous fluids through porous media, 1st edn., Second Printing edn. Edward Brothers, Ann ArborGoogle Scholar
  19. Tsang C-F (1992) Reply to preceding discussion of “the modeling process and model validation”. Ground Water 30(4):623–624CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Yazvin LS (1972) Reliability of hydrogeological estimates of groundwater resources (Достоверность Гидрогеологических Прогнозов при Оценке Эксплотационных Запасов Подземных Bод), Moscow, Nedra, p. 150 (in Russian)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.AthensUSA

Personalised recommendations