Contaminant source identification in groundwater by means of artificial neural network

Secci, Daniele; Molino, Laura; Zanini, Andrea

doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2022.128003

Cited by 19 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Secci et al. (2022) innovatively utilized an artificial neural network to develop an inversion model for direct inversion and evaluated its effectiveness in various scenarios. In our study, the main difference from previous studies is that we considered more types of variables that are unknown, including the location of pollution sources, release history, and aquifer parameters.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Comparison of Inversion Methods for Surrogate‐Based Groundwater Contamination Source Identification With Varying Degrees of Model Complexity

Chang,

Guo,

Chen

et al. 2024

Water Resources Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Accurate identification of groundwater contamination sources is important for designing efficacious site remediation strategies. Currently, the methods for identifying contamination sources mainly fall into three distinct categories: simulation optimization, Bayesian inference, and data assimilation. Each method has its own advantages and disadvantages under specific site conditions. To evaluate the applicability of these methods, we chose one representative inversion algorithm from each category, namely the Improved Butterfly Optimization Algorithm (IBOA) for simulation optimization, the Ensemble Smoother with Multiple Data Assimilation (ES‐MDA) for data assimilation, and the DiffeRential Evolution Adaptive Metropolis with a Snooker Update and Sampling from a Past Archive (DREAM(ZS)) for Bayesian inference. We conducted a comprehensive evaluation of these methods' performance under different model complexities, employing a surrogate model as a substitute for the complex forward model. By addressing two distinct problems involving conservative pollutant transport and Light Non‐Aqueous Phase Liquid (LNAPL) transport with biodegradation, we employed four criteria (elapsed time, result accuracy, posterior probability distribution, and noise resistance) for evaluation. The findings unequivocally indicate that DREAM(ZS) outperforms others in terms of result accuracy and posterior probability distribution. It also adeptly navigates the interrelations among disparate unknown variables. The strength of ES‐MDA lies in its efficiency. It achieves relatively satisfactory results with a reduced computational burden. In contrast, IBOA underperforms in both test problems. In terms of resistance to noise, both DREAM(ZS) and ES‐MDA perform better than IBOA does.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%