An initial inverse calibration of the ground-water flow model for the Hanford unconfined aquifer

Jacobson, E.A.; Freshly,

doi:10.2172/6913533

Cited by 19 publications

(54 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In refming the inverse calibration, the initial transmissivities were adjusted by hand near Gable Mountain and B Ponds to be closer to the fmal calibrated distribution. A few of the transmissivity zones were adjusted to better reflect the trends in transmissivity developed in previous calibration efforts by Jacobson and Freshley (1990) and Cearlock et al (1975).…”

Section: Two-dimensional Flow Model Recalibrationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…. 121 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 (Year) 1195 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 Date 0 136 197819801982198419861990Date (Ye4 121 197819801982198419861990 Date (Year) 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 hte ( 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 Date ( 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 Datebear) …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Three-dimensional analysis of future groundwater flow conditions and contaminant plume transport in the Hanford Site unconfined aquifer system: FY 1996 and 1997 status report

Cole¹,

Wurstner²,

Williams³

et al. 1997

101

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

et al. (1996) in support of the Environmental Restoration Program. However, the current three-dimensional model has resulted in higher estimates of peak concentrations at shallow depths and less vertical migration than was predicted in previous site-wide yodel applications. These discrepancies are attributable to differences in basic assumptions made about the hydrogeologic framework and the horizontal and vertical V discretization used in each model. The differences in assumptions resulting from each modeling approach affect lateral and vertical distributions of predicted hydraulic heads and contaminants in the unconfined aquifer.The near-term impacts of existing plumes to on-site drinking water supplies were examined by evaluating predicted concentration levels in the vicinity of identified on-site water supplies over the next Farm, will be impacted by future transport of these contaminants.vi

show abstract

Section: Two-dimensional Flow Model Recalibrationmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Three-dimensional analysis of future groundwater flow conditions and contaminant plume transport in the Hanford Site unconfined aquifer system: FY 1996 and 1997 status report

Cole¹,

Wurstner²,

Williams³

et al. 1997

101

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…To determine the three-dimensional spatial distribution of hydraulic parameters, the steady state, two-dimensional model of the unconfined aquifer system used in Jacobson and Freshley (1990) was recalibrated to 1979 water table conditions using the statistical inverse method implemented in CFEST-INV (Devary 1987). The three-dimensional hydraulic conductivity was set such that it was consistent with the two-dimensional results of the recalibration and also with knowledge of the three-dimensional structure of the aquifer and the estimated properties of the hydrogeologic units.…”

Section: Modeling Support To Hanford Groundwater Monitoring Programmentioning

confidence: 99%

Uncertainty Analysis Framework - Hanford Site-Wide Groundwater Flow and Transport Model

Cole¹,

Bergeron²,

Murray³

et al. 2001

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SummaryAt the request of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) embarked on a new initiative to strengthen the technical defensibility of the Hanford site-wide groundwater model (SGM) used to make groundwater flow and transport predictions at the U.S. Department of Energy's Hanford Site in southeastern Washington State (Figure 1.1). The initial focus of the initiative is the characterization of major uncertainties in the current conceptual model that would affect model predictions. The long-term goals of the initiative are the development and implementation of a stochastic uncertainty estimation methodology in future assessments and analyses using the site-wide groundwater model. This report focuses on the development and implementation of the uncertainty analysis framework. The overall technical approach for this framework will closely follow the recommendations of the SGM external peer review panel made in 1999 (Gorelick et al. 1999). As suggested by the panel, the framework being developed acknowledges the inherent uncertainty in conceptual model representations and associated model inputs and thus in any predictions. This new framework acknowledges that prescribed processes, physical features, initial and boundary conditions, system stresses, field data, and model parameter values are not known and cannot be known with certainty and, as a result, predictions of heads and concentrations in three dimensions over time will be uncertain as well. The approach will specifically address those areas of special interest that were identified by the expert panel. These include uncertainty related to• alternative model structures and constructs of processes (e.g., different zonation, different boundary conditions, large-scale features, stresses, and chemical reactions)• model parameters• model scale and resolution issues.This report represents one of the first steps in development of this new SGM uncertainty framework by• identifying the types of assessments for which the SGM will likely be applied (Section 2)• discussing the various sources of uncertainty and the issues associated with the assessment of uncertainty as they relate to the development of this new framework for assessment of uncertainty in the Hanford SGM predictions. The sources of uncertainty include the most common high-level categories: uncertainty resulting from natural variability, model structure, and model parameters (Section 3).• providing a detailed description of the current conceptual model of the Hanford Site unconfined aquifer system that includes an assessment of the uncertainties and issues associated with that model (Section 4), the well picks used in the current interpretation of the hydrostratigraphic structure (Appendix A), and the results of a literature search that developed an initial bibliography and iii assessment regarding the various potential intercommunication mechanisms between the unconfined aquifer system and the uppermost confined aquifer system in the underlying basalts (Appendix ...

show abstract

“…5.2.6.1 Groundwater Flow Direction. The SWL lies in a zone of very high transmissivities (Jacobson and Freshley 1990) and, as a result, there is a very low hydraulic gradient across the site. A map of the water table in the vicinity of the site, based on June 1995 data, is presented in Figure 5.2-8.…”

Section: Groundwater Flowmentioning

confidence: 99%

Annual report for RCRA groundwater monitoring projects at Hanford Site facilities for 1993

1994

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An initial inverse calibration of the ground-water flow model for the Hanford unconfined aquifer

Cited by 19 publications

References 5 publications

Three-dimensional analysis of future groundwater flow conditions and contaminant plume transport in the Hanford Site unconfined aquifer system: FY 1996 and 1997 status report

Three-dimensional analysis of future groundwater flow conditions and contaminant plume transport in the Hanford Site unconfined aquifer system: FY 1996 and 1997 status report

Uncertainty Analysis Framework - Hanford Site-Wide Groundwater Flow and Transport Model

Annual report for RCRA groundwater monitoring projects at Hanford Site facilities for 1993

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About