Advertisement

Model Identification

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

Abstract

To predict responses of geological objects on man-made or natural impacts by applying mathematical methods, i.e., by solving differential or integral equations, the pertinent properties of the geological objects should be assigned continuously, that is, at each point of the objects and at each instant of the period of simulation, if the properties vary in time, besides maybe countable sets of points, i.e., isolated in space and time points. The boundary and initial conditions must be known in the same way. Unfortunately, only an infinitesimal part of the required geological information is available from direct observations and measurements. This information gap must be filled, and geological models have to do the job. They are a tool for interpolation and extrapolation of the sparse available data to all points of the geological objects of interest.

Keywords

Hydraulic Conductivity Water Table Model Identification Hydraulic Head Recharge Rate 
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. Allison H (1979) Inverse unstable problems and some of their applications. Math Sci 4:3–30Google Scholar
  2. Aster RC, Borchers B, Thurber CH (2005) Parameter estimation and inverse problems. Elsevier, Amsterdam, p 298Google Scholar
  3. Batu V (2006) Applied flow and solute transport modeling in aquifers: fundamental principles and analytical and numerical methods. CRC Press, Taylor and Francis Group, Boca Raton, p 667Google Scholar
  4. Beven K (1989) Changing ideas in hydrology—the case of physically-based models. J Hydrol 105:157–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Beven K (2005) On the concept of model structural error. Water Sci Technol 52(6):167–175 IWA PublishingGoogle Scholar
  6. Carrera J, Neuman SP (1986) Estimation of aquifer parameters under transient and steady state conditions, 2. Uniqueness W Res 22(2):211–227Google Scholar
  7. Carrera J, Alcolea A, Medina A, Hidalgo J, Stooten L (2005) Inverse problem in hydrogeology. Hydrogeol J 13:206–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cooley RL (2004) A theory for modeling ground-water flow in heterogeneous media: Reston, VA, U.S. Geological survey, professional paper, 1679, p 220Google Scholar
  9. Dai Z, Keating E, Gable C, Levitt D, Heikoop J, Simmons A (2010) Hydrol J 18:607–624Google Scholar
  10. 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
  11. Flavelle P (1992) A quantitative measure of model validation and its potential use for regulatory purposes. Adv Water Res 15:5–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Freyberg DL (1988) An exercise in ground-water model calibration and prediction. Ground Water 26(3):350–360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Frind EO, Hokkanen GB (1987) Simulation of the borden plume using the alternate direction Galerkin technique. WRR 23(5):918–930CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Frind EO, Matanga GB, Cherry JA (1985) The dual formulation of flow for contaminant transport modeling. 2. Borden Aquifer. WRR 21(2):170–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gorokhovski VM (1977) Mathematical methods and reliability of hydrogeological and engineering geological predictions (Maтeмaтичecкиe мeтoды и дocтoвepнocть гидpoгeoлoгичecкиx и инжeнepнo-гeoлoгичecкиx пpoгнoзoв), Nedra, Moscow, p 77 (in Russian)Google Scholar
  16. Gorokhovski VM, Weaver JW (2007) A catalog of ground water flow solutions for plume diving calculations, United States environmental protection agency. Washington, DC, 20460, EPA/600/R-07/122Google Scholar
  17. Hornung U (1990) Parameter identification, proceedings of the international symposium on water quality modeling of agricultural non-point sources, Part 2, June 19–23, 1988, U.S. Department of agriculture, agriculture research service, ARS-81, 755–764Google Scholar
  18. Kerr RA (1993) Looking-deeply-into the earth’s crust in Europe. Science 261:295–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 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
  20. Konikow LF, Bredehoeft JD (1992) Ground-water models cannot be validated. Adv Water Res 15(2):75–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kool JB, Parker JC, van Genuchten MTh (1987) Parameter estimation for unsaturated flow and transport models: a review. J Hydrol 91:255–293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lerner DN (1985) Are ground water models misleading? Adv Water-Eng Proc Int Sym, Birmingham, 15–19 July, 124–128Google Scholar
  23. Mercer JW, Faust CR (1981) Ground-water modeling, national water well association, p 60Google Scholar
  24. Moore C, Doherty J (2006) The cost of uniqueness in groundwater model calibration. Adv Water Res 29(4):605–623CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Morton A (1993) Mathematical models: questions of trustworthiness. Br J Phil Sci 44:659–674CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Neuman SP, Orr S (1993) Prediction of steady state flow in nonuniform geologic media by conditional moments: exact nonlocal formalism, effective conductivities, and weak approximation. WWR 29(2):341–364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Oreskes N (2004) Science and public policy: what’s proof got to do with it? environmental science and Policy, 7. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 369–383Google Scholar
  28. Oreskes N, Shrader-Frechette K, Belitz K (1994) Verification validation, and conformation of numerical models in earth sciences. Science 263(4):641–646CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Polubarinova-Kochina PYa (1962) Theory of ground flow. Princeton University Press, NJGoogle Scholar
  30. Strack ODL (1989) Groundwater mechanics. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, p 732Google Scholar
  31. Tikhonov NA, Arsenin VY (1977) Solution of ill-posed problems. Halsted, Washington, p 230Google Scholar
  32. van Genuchten MTh, Gorelick SM, Yeh WW-G (1990) Application of parameter estimation technique to solute transport studies. Proceedings of the International symposium on water quality modeling of agricultural non-point sources, Part 2, June 19–23, 1988, U.S. Department of agriculture, agriculture research service, ARS-81, 731–753Google Scholar
  33. Yakowitz S, Ducstein L (1980) Instability in aquifer identification: theory and case study. Water Resour Res 16(8):1045–1064CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Yeh WW-G (1986) Review of parameter identification procedures in ground water hydrology: the inverse problem. WWR 22(2):95–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Yeh WW-G, Yoon YS (1981) Aquifer parameter identification with optimum dimension in parameterization. WRR 17(3):664–672CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.AthensUSA

Personalised recommendations