Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cc8bf7c57-8cnds Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-11T22:53:20.525Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

5 - Performing unbiased groundwater modelling: application of the theory of regionalised variables

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 December 2010

By
S. Ahmed ,
S. Sarah ,
A. Nabi  and
S. Owais
Edited by
Howard S. Wheater ,
Simon A. Mathias  and
Xin Li
Howard S. Wheater
Affiliation:
Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine, London
Simon A. Mathias
Affiliation:
University of Durham
Xin Li
Affiliation:
Chinese Academy of Sciences, Lanzhou, China
Get access

Summary

INTRODUCTION

Groundwater in arid and semi-arid regions is increasingly over-exploited because of high population growth and extensive agricultural application. It is essential to have a thorough understanding of the complex processes involved when undertaking groundwater assessment and management activities. Groundwater models play an important role due to their ability to estimate head distributions and flow rates for possible future scenarios. These models are computer-based numerical solutions to the boundary value problems of concern.

There is no doubt that the mathematical and computational aspect of groundwater modelling has reached a satisfactory level of development. Therefore, the focus of research in recent years has shifted to the problems of parameter identification and uncertainty quantification. Hydrogeological parameters display a large spatial heterogeneity, with possible variations of several orders of magnitude within a short distance. This spatial variability is difficult to characterise in a deterministic way. However, a statistical analysis shows that hydrogeological parameters do not vary in space in a purely random fashion. There is some structure to this spatial variability that can be characterised in a statistical way.

During the last few decades, numerous mathematical approaches have been used to estimate hydrogeological parameters from scattered or sparse data. The study of regionalised variables starts from the ability to interpolate a given field from only a limited number of observations while preserving the theoretical spatial correlation. This is accomplished by means of a geostatistical technique called kriging.

Type
Chapter
Information
Groundwater Modelling in Arid and Semi-Arid Areas , pp. 63 - 74
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aboufirassi, M. and Marino, M. A. (1983) Kriging of water levels in Souss aquifer, Morocco. J. Math. Geol. 15(4), 537–551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aboufirassi, M. and Marino, M. A. (1984) Cokriging of aquifer transmissivities from field measurements of transmissivity and specific capacity. J. Math. Geol. 16(1), 19–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ahmed, S. (1995) An interactive software for computing and modeling a variogram. In Proc. of a conference on Water Resources Management (WRM '95), August 28–30, ed. Mousavi, and Karamooz, , 797–808. Isfahan University of Technology, Iran.Google Scholar
Ahmed, S. and Marsily, G. (1988) Some application of multivariate kriging in groundwater hydrology. Science de la Terre, Serie Informatique 28, 1–25.Google Scholar
Ahmed, S. and Gupta, C. P. (1989) Stochastic spatial prediction of hydrogeologic parameters: role of cross-validation in kriging. In International Workshop on Appropriate Methodologies for Development and Management of Groundwater Resources in Developing Countries, Hyderabad, India, February 28–March 4, 1989. Oxford and IBH Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd, IGW, Vol. III, 77–90.Google Scholar
Armstrong, M. (1998) Basic Linear Geostatistics, Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bakr, A. A., Gelhar, L. W., Gutjahr, A. L. and MacMillan, R. R. (1978) Stochastic analysis of spatial variability in subsurface flows. 1. Comparison of one- and three-dimensional flows. Water Resour. Res. 14(2), 263–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bear, J. (1979) Hydraulics of Groundwater. McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Brebbia, C. A. (1978) The Boundary Element Method for Engineers. Pentech Press.Google Scholar
Chiang, W. H. (2005) 3D-Groundwater Modeling with PMWIN: a simulation system for modeling groundwater flow and transport processes, 2nd edn. Springer.Google Scholar
Chiles, J. P. and Delfiner, P. (1999) Geostatistics: modeling spatial uncertainty. Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooley, R. L. (1977) A method of estimating parameters and assessing reliability for models of steady state groundwater flow. 1. Theory and numerical property. Water Resour. Res. 13(2), 318–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooley, R. L. (1979) A method of estimating parameters and assessing reliability for models of steady state groundwater flow. 2. Application of statistical analysis. Water Resour. Res. 15(3), 603–617.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooley, R. L. (1982) Incorporation of prior information into non-linear regression groundwater flow models. 1. Theory. Water Resour. Res. 18(4), 965–976.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cressie, N. A. (1991) Statistics for Spatial Data. Wiley Series in Probability and Mathematical Statistics. Wiley.Google Scholar
Cushman, J. H. (1990) An Introduction to hierarchial porous media. In Dynamics of Fluids in Hierarchial porous media, ed. Cushman, J. H., 1–5. Academic.Google Scholar
Dagan, G. and Neuman, S. P. (1997) Subsurface flow and transport: a stochastic approach. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marsily, G. (1986) Quantitative Hydrogeology: Groundwater Hydrology for Engineers, 203–206. Academic.Google Scholar
Marsily, G., Ledoux, E., Levassor, A., Poitrinal, D. and Salem, A. (1978) Modelling of large multilayered aquifer systems: theory and applications. J. of Hydrol. 36, 1–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marsily, G., Lavedan, G., Boucher, M. and Fasanini, G. (1984) Interpretation of interference tests in a well field using geostatistical techniques to fit the permeability distribution in a reservoir model. In Geostatistics for Natural Resources Characterization, part 2, ed. Verly, G.et al., 831–849. D. Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Delfiner, P. and Delhomme, J. P. (1983) Optimum interpolation by kriging. In Display and Analysis of Spatial Data, ed. Davis, J. C. and McCullough, M. J., 96–114. Wiley.Google Scholar
Delhomme, J. P. (1976) Application de la théorie des variables régionalisées dans les sciences de l'eau. Doctoral Thesis, Ecole des Mines de Paris Fontainebleau, France.Google Scholar
Delhomme, J. P. (1978) Kriging in the hydrosciences. Advances in Water Resources 1(5), 252–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Delhomme, J. P. (1979) Spatial variability and uncertainty in groundwater flow parameters: a geostatistical approach. Water Resour. Res. 15(2), 269–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elo, S. (1992) Geophysical indications of deep fractures in the Narankavaara-Syote and Kandalaksha-Puolanka zones. Geological Survey of Finland 13. 43–50.Google Scholar
Freeze, R. A. (1971) Three-dimensional, transient, saturated-unsaturated flow in a groundwater basin. Water Resour. Res. 7(2), 347–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gambolati, G. and Volpi, G. (1979a) Groundwater contour mapping in Venice by stochastic interpolators. 1. Theory. Water Resour. Res. 15(2), 281–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gambolati, G. and Volpi, G. (1979b) A conceptual deterministic analysis of the kriging technique in hydrology. Water Resour. Res. 15(3), 625–629.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ganoulis, J. and Morel-Seytoux, H. (1985) Application of stochastic methods to the study of aquifer systems. Project IHP-II A.1.9.2. UNESCO.Google Scholar
Goovaerts, P. (1997) Geostatistics for Natural Resources Evaluation. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Houston, J. F. T. and Lewis, R. T. (1988) The Victoria Province drought relief project. II. Borehole yield relationships. Groundwater 26(4), 418–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maréchal, J. C., Dewandel, B. and Subrahmanyam, K. (2004) Use of hydraulic tests at different scales to characterise fracture network properties in the weathered-fractured layer of a hard rock aquifer. Water Resour. Res. 40, W11508, doi:10.1029/2004WR003137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maréchal, J. C., Wyns, R., Lachassagne, P., Subrahmanyam, K. and Touchard, F. (2003) Anisotropie verticale de la perméabilité de l'horizon fissuré des aquifères de socle: concordance avec la structure géologique des profils d'altération, C.R. Geoscience 335. 451–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matheron, G. (1965) Les variables régionalisées et leur estimation. Masson.Google Scholar
Mercer, J. W. and Faust, Ch. R. (1981) Groundwater Modelling. National Water Well Assoc.Google Scholar
Pinder, G. F. and Gray, W. G. (1977) Finite Element Simulation in Surface and Subsurface Hydrology. Academic.Google Scholar
Prickett, T. A. (1975) Modeling techniques for groundwater evaluation. Adv. Hydrosci. 10, 1–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Remson, I., Hornberger, G. M. and Molz, F. J. (1971) Numerical Methods in Subsurface Hydrology with an Introduction to the Finite Element Method. Wiley (Intersciences).Google Scholar
Stuckless, J. S. and Dudley, W. W. (2002) The geohydrologic setting of Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Applied Geochemistry 17(6), 659–682.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Talbot, C. J. and Sirat, M. (2001) Stress control of hydraulic conductivity in fracture-saturated Swedish bedrock. Engineering Geology 61(2–3), 145–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, R. and Howard, K. (2000) A tectono-geomorphic model of the hydrogeology of deeply weathered crystalline rock: evidence from Uganda. Hydrogeology J. 8(3), 279–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Townley, L. R. and Wilson, J. L. (1985) Computationally efficient algorithms for parameter estimation and uncertainty propagation in numerical models of groundwater flow. Water Resour. Res. 21(12), 1851–1860.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trescott, P. C., Pinder, G. F. and Carson, S. P. (1976) Finite difference model for aquifer simulation in two dimensions with results of numerical experiments. In Technique of Water Resources Investigations of the USGS.
,United Nations Environmental Programme (1992) World Atlas of Desertification. Edward Arnold.
Wang, H. F. and Anderson, M. P. (1982) Introduction to Groundwater Modeling. Finite Difference and Finite Element Methods. Freeman.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×