2013
DOI: 10.5194/hess-17-3245-2013
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Analyzing the effects of geological and parameter uncertainty on prediction of groundwater head and travel time

Abstract: Abstract. Uncertainty of groundwater model predictions has in the past mostly been related to uncertainty in the hydraulic parameters, whereas uncertainty in the geological structure has not been considered to the same extent. Recent developments in theoretical methods for quantifying geological uncertainty have made it possible to consider this factor in groundwater modeling. In this study we have applied the multiple-point geostatistical method (MPS) integrated in the Stanford Geostatistical Modeling Softwar… Show more

Help me understand this report
View preprint versions

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
48
0

Year Published

2014
2014
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

3
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 43 publications
(48 citation statements)
references
References 55 publications
0
48
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Additionally, only model parameters (e.g., hydraulic conductivity) but not the geological structure were adjusted to fit the observations, and possible structural errors in the geological models are therefore, at least partially, compensated for by the estimated model parameters. Hence, larger differences are expected between model predictions of travel time and capture zone, especially since the geological structure has been shown to be crucial for variables as travel time and capture zone that depend on flow path (Seifert et al, 2008;He et al, 2013).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Additionally, only model parameters (e.g., hydraulic conductivity) but not the geological structure were adjusted to fit the observations, and possible structural errors in the geological models are therefore, at least partially, compensated for by the estimated model parameters. Hence, larger differences are expected between model predictions of travel time and capture zone, especially since the geological structure has been shown to be crucial for variables as travel time and capture zone that depend on flow path (Seifert et al, 2008;He et al, 2013).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The comparison of simulations of groundwater head and capture zone indicates that in cases where knowledge of the overall geological structure is available, an object-based training image may be just as good as a training image based on geological interpretations of the actual site. Although this conclusion was based on groundwater heads and capture zones, it is expected that similar conclusions would be obtained from simulations of groundwater age or solute transport as these variables are, similar to capture zones, very much dependent on path lines and velocities, which are sensitive to geological heterogeneity (He et al, 2013). This study was based on a highly heterogeneous two-facie geological system where the exact shape and location of the clay lenses may not affect the results from the groundwater model significantly.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 91%
“…Soft conditioning was applied in S4 but not in S3. According to He et al (2013) the standard deviation on simulated hydraulic head, based on multiple realizations of the geology, converges to a fixed value as more models are accumulated. A stable value is approached after 30 realizations and in this study 50 realizations were therefore generated in each scenario and subsequently anchored to the steady state groundwater model.…”
Section: Ensemble Analysismentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The above mentioned MPS studies conduct mostly 2-D simulations, partly on synthetic data. The training image is the backbone of the MPS method and it has been acknowledged by dell 'Arciprete et al (2012) and He et al (2013) that reliable 3-D training images are difficult to acquire.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%