Hydrogeological model of the Baltic Artesian Basin

Abstract

http://www.link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10040-013-0970-

Inverse modeling of leakage through a rockfill dam foundation during its construction stage using transient flow model, neural network and genetic algorithm

“…Woodbury and Ulrych, 2000;Garcia and Shigidi, 2006;Virbulis et al, 2013). This assumption simplifies the inverse procedure, but the obtained solution may be difficult in representing the permeability variations of foundation rocks induced by excavation, backfill, grouting or construction of impervious zones (Chen et al, 2007(Chen et al, , 2014 and to reproduce the transient nature of field observations induced by fluctuation of pool water level and change of seepage domain or boundary during construction.…”

“…As a fact that the hydraulic head can be obtained in the field relatively easier and cheaper than other observations, most of the inverse models rely only on the measurements of hydraulic head (e.g. Lingireddy, 1998;Karpouzos et al, 2001;Garcia and Shigidi, 2006;Chang et al, 2008;Virbulis et al, 2013), and this treatment may make the inverse solution plagued with the non-uniqueness problem (Dietrich and Newsam, 1990;Jing et al, 2007). A better strategy is to use multiple types of observations (e.g.…”

A comprehensive approach to the 3D geological modelling of sedimentary basins: example of Latvia, the central part of the Baltic Basin

“…Certain geological modelling has previously been done in the neighbouring areas Vallner 2003) and regional studies including the 3D characterization of the geological structure (Poprowa et al 1999;Šliaupa 2002;Shogenova et al 2009;Spalvins et al 2012;Virbulis et al 2012Virbulis et al , 2013) have been carried out in Latvia. Nevertheless, direct modelling of the 3D geometry of the geological structure of Latvia has not been performed so far.…”

Evaluation of Groundwater Leakage into a Drainage Tunnel in Jinping-I Arch Dam Foundation in Southwestern China: A Case Study

“…In hydrology or hydrogeology, numerous inverse models (e.g., Neuman 1973;Woodbury and Ulrych 2000;Valstar et al 2004) have been proposed using various optimization techniques (e.g., Karpouzos et al 2001;Rao et al 2003;Gill et al 2006) for back calculations of the aquifer parameters with an acceptable computational cost. Most of the models, however, relied only on the hydraulic head observations for construction of the objective function (e.g., Shigidi and Garcia 2003;Garcia and Shigidi 2006;Karahan and Ayvaz 2008;Virbulis et al 2013), making the inverse solution plagued with the non-uniqueness problem (Mao et al 2013). Furthermore, quite a number of the models (e.g., Yang et al 2004;Garcia and Shigidi 2006;Hernandez et al 2006;Virbulis et al 2013) assumed steady-state flow conditions for the inverse calculations, disregarding the transient nature of groundwater flow induced by fluctuation of the reservoir water level and change of the boundary condition.…”

“…Most of the models, however, relied only on the hydraulic head observations for construction of the objective function (e.g., Shigidi and Garcia 2003;Garcia and Shigidi 2006;Karahan and Ayvaz 2008;Virbulis et al 2013), making the inverse solution plagued with the non-uniqueness problem (Mao et al 2013). Furthermore, quite a number of the models (e.g., Yang et al 2004;Garcia and Shigidi 2006;Hernandez et al 2006;Virbulis et al 2013) assumed steady-state flow conditions for the inverse calculations, disregarding the transient nature of groundwater flow induced by fluctuation of the reservoir water level and change of the boundary condition. To improve the reliability of the inverse solution and better address the nonuniqueness problem, therefore, transient flow models are preferable for the back calculations (e.g., Alcolea et al 2006;Bastani et al 2010;Dai et al 2010;Perello et al 2014;Zhou et al 2015), in which both the hydraulic head and discharge time series measurements are utilized for the construction of a couple of the objective functions.…”