A methodology for validating numerical ground water models

Ground Water

Volumn 42, Issue 3, 2004, Pages 347-362

  Hassan, Ahmed E ^a,b  

^a DESERT RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (United States)

^b CAIRO UNIVERSITY   (Egypt)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COMPUTER SIMULATION; HYDROGEOLOGY; MATHEMATICAL MODELS; MONTE CARLO METHODS; RANDOM PROCESSES;

GROUND WATER MODELS; STOCHASTIC MODELS;

GROUNDWATER;

GROUNDWATER; METHODOLOGY; MODEL VALIDATION; NUMERICAL MODEL; PREDICTION;

CONFERENCE PAPER; ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING; FORECASTING; GEOLOGY; SOIL; THEORETICAL MODEL; VALIDATION STUDY; WATER SUPPLY;

ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING; FORECASTING; GEOLOGY; MODELS, THEORETICAL; SOIL; WATER SUPPLY;

EID: 2342463702     PISSN: 0017467X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-6584.2004.tb02683.x     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (45)

1. Ababou, R., B. Sagar, and G. Wittmeyer. 1992. Testing procedures for spatially distributed flow models. Advances in Water Resources 15, 181-198.
2. Anderson, M.P., and W.W. Woessner. 1992. The role of postaudit in model validation. Advances in Water Resources 15, 167-173.
3. AWR. 1992a. Special issue: Validation of geo-hydrological models, Part 1. Advances in Water Resources 15, no. 1.
4. AWR. 1992b. Special issue: Validation of geo-hydrological models, Part 2. Advances in Water Resources 15, no. 3.
5. Balci, O., and R.G. Sargent. 1981. A methodology for cost-risk analysis in the statistical validation of simulation models. Communication of the ACM 24, no. 4: 190-197.
6. Bredehoeft, J.D., and L.F. Konikow. 1993. Ground water models: Validate or invalidate. Ground Water 31, no. 2: 178-179.
7. Capilla J., J. Gómez-Hernández, and A. Sahuquillo. 1998. Stochastic simulation of transmissivity fields conditional to both transmissivity and piezometric data, III: Application to the Culebra formation at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP), New Mexico, USA. Journal of Hydrology 207, no. 3-4: 254-269.
8. Chapman, J.B., K. Pohlmann, G. Pohll, A.E. Hassan, P. Sanders, M. Sanchez, and S. Jaunarajs. 2002. Remediation of the Faultless underground nuclear test: Moving forward in the face of model uncertainty. In Proceedings of the Waste Management '02 Conference, Tucson, Arizona. Tucson, Arizona: WM Symposia Inc.
9. D'Agnese, F.A., C.C. Faunt, M.C. Hill, and A.K. Turner. 1999. Death Valley regional ground water flow model calibration using optimal parameter estimation methods and geoscientific information systems. Advances in Water Resources 22, no. 8: 777-790.
10. Davis, P.A., N.E. Olague, and M.T. Goodrich. 1991. Approaches for the validation of models used for performance assessment of high-level radioactive waste repositories. (Sandia National Laboratories, SAND90-0575, Albuquerque, New Mexico). Washington, D.C.: Division of High Level Waste Management, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
11. Davis, P.A., N.E. Olague, and M.T. Goodrich. 1992. Application of a validation strategy to Darcy's experiment. Advances in Water Resources 15, 175-180.
12. Eisenberg, N., M. Federline, B. Sagar, G. Wittmeyer, J. Andersson, and S. Wingefors. 1994. Model validation from a regulatory perspective: A summary. In Proceedings GEOVAL '94: Validation Through Model Testing, NEA/SKI Symposium, Paris, France, 421-434. Paris: Nuclear Energy Agency.
13. Flavelle, P. 1992. A quantitative measure of model validation and its potential use for regulatory purposes. Advances in Water Resources 15, 5-13.
14. Franks, S.W., and K.J. Beven. 1997. Bayesian estimation of uncertainty in land surface-atmosphere flux predictions. Geophysical Research 102, no. D20: 23991-23999.
15. Freer, J., K. Beven, and B. Ambroise. 1996. Bayesian estimation of uncertainty in runoff prediction and the value of data: An application of the GLUE approach. Water Resources Research 32, no. 7: 2161-2173.
16. GEOVAL87. 1987. In Proceedings GEOVAL '87: Verification and Validation of Geosphere Performance Assessment Models, SKI Symposium, Stockholm, Sweden. Stockholm: Swedish Nuclear Power Inspectorate.
17. GEOVAL90. 1990. In Proceedings GEOVAL '90: Validation of Geosphere Flow and Transport Models, SKI Symposium, Stockholm, Sweden. Stockholm: Swedish Nuclear Power Inspectorate.
18. GEOVAL94. 1994. In Proceedings GEOVAL '94: Validation Through Model Testing, NEA/SKI Symposium, Paris, France. Paris: Nuclear Energy Agency.
19. Gómez-Hernández, J.J., A. Sahuquillo, and J.E. Capilla. 1997. Stochastic simulation of transmissivity fields conditional to both transmissivity and piezometric data, I: The theory. Journal of Hydrology 203, no. 1-4: 162-174.
20. Grundfelt, B., B. Lindbom, A. Larsson, and K. Andersson. 1990. HYDROCOIN level 3: Testing methods for sensitivity/uncertainty analysis. In Proceedings GEOVAL '90: Validation of Geosphere Flow and Transport Models, SKI Symposium, Stockholm, Sweden. Stockholm: Swedish Nuclear Power Inspectorate.
21. Hassan, A.E., K.F. Pohlmann, and J.B. Champan. 2001. Uncertainty analysis of radionuclide transport in a fractured coastal aquifer with geothermal effects. Transport in Porous Media 43, 107-136.
22. Herbert, A., W. Dershowitz, J. Long, and D. Hodgkinson. 1990. Validation of fracture flow models in the Stripa project. In Proceedings GEOVAL '90: Validation of Geosphere Flow and Transport Models, SKI Symposium, Stockholm, Sweden. Stockholm: Swedish Nuclear Power Inspectorate.
23. Hill, M.C., R.L. Cooley, and D.W. Pollock. 1998. A controlled experiment in ground water flow model calibration. Ground Water 36, no. 3: 520-535.
24. INTRACOIN. 1984. Final report level 1: Code verification. Report SKI 84:3. Stockholm: Swedish Nuclear Power Inspectorate.
25. Jackson, C.P., D.A. Lever, and P.J. Summer. 1992. Validation of transport models for use in repository performance assessment: A view illustrated for INTRAVAL test case 1b. Advances in Water Resources 15, 33-45.
26. Konikow, L.F., and J.D. Bredehoeft. 1992. Ground water models cannot be validated. Advances in Water Resources 15, 75-83.
27. Legates, D.R., and G.J. McCabe Jr. 1999. Evaluating the use of goodness-of-fit measures in hydrologic and hydroclimatic model validation. Water Resources Research 35, no. 1: 233-241.
28. Luis, S.J., and D. McLaughlin. 1992. A stochastic approach to model validation. Advances in Water Resources 15, 15-32.
29. McCombie, C., I.G. McKinley, and P. Zuidema. 1990. Sufficient validation: The value of robustness in performance assessment and system design. In Proceedings GEOVAL '90: Validation of Geosphere Flow and Transport Models, SKI Symposium, Stockholm, Sweden, 598-610. Stockholm: Swedish Nuclear Power Inspectorate.
30. McCombie, C., and I. McKinley. 1993. Validation - Another perspective. Ground Water 31, no. 4: 530-531.
31. Mroczkowski, M., G.P. Raper, and G. Kuczera. 1997. The quest for more powerful validation of conceptual catchment models. Water Resources Research 33, no. 10: 2325-2335.
32. Neuman, S.P. 1992. Validation of safety assessment models as a process of scientific and public confidence building. In Proceedings of High Level Waste Management Conference, Vol. 2, Las Vegas. LaGrange Park, Illinois: American Nuclear Society.
33. Nicholson, T.J. 1990. Recent accomplishments in the INTRAVAL Project - A status report on validation efforts. In Proceedings GEOVAL '90: Validation of Geosphere Flow and Transport Models, SKI Symposium, Stockholm, Sweden. Stockholm: Swedish Nuclear Power Inspectorate.
34. NRC. 1984. A revised modeling strategy document for high-level waste performance assessment. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
35. Oreskes, N., K. Shrader-Frechette, and K. Belits. 1994. Verification, validation, and confirmation of numerical models in the earth sciences. Science 264, 641-646.
36. Poeter, E.P., and M.C. Hill. 1997. Inverse models: A necessary next step in ground water modeling. Ground Water 35, no. 2: 250-260.
37. Pohll, G., A.E. Hassan, J.B. Chapman, C. Papelis, and R. Andricevic. 1999. Modeling ground water flow and radioactive transport in a fractured aquifer. Ground Water 37, no. 5: 770-784.
38. Pohll, G., and T. Mihevc. 2000. Data decision analysis: Central Nevada Test Area. Publication No. 45179. Reno, Nevada: Desert Research Institute, Division of Hydrologic Sciences.
39. Pohlmann, K.F., A.E. Hassan, and J.B. Chapman. 2000. Description of hydrogeologic heterogeneity and evaluation of radionuclide transport at an underground nuclear test Contaminant Hydrology 44, 353-386.
40. Sargent, R.G. 1990. Validation of mathematical models. In Proceedings GEOVAL '90: Validation of Geosphere Flow and Transport Models, SKI Symposium, Stockholm, Sweden, 571-579. Stockholm: Swedish Nuclear Power Inspectorate.
41. Tsang, C.F. 1987. Comments on model validation. Transport in Porous Media 2, no. 6: 623-630.
42. Tsang, C.F. 1991. The modeling process and model validation. Ground Water 29, no. 6: 825-831.
43. Wen X.-H., J.E. Capilla, C.V. Deutsch, J. Gómez-Hernandez, and A.S. Cullick. 1999. A program to create permeability fields that honor single-phase flow rate and pressure data. Computer & Geosciences 25, 217-230.
44. Zimmerman, D.A., G. de Marsily, C.A. Gotway, M.G. Marietta, C.L. Axness, R.L. Bras, J. Carrera, G. Dagan, P.B. Davies, D.P. Gallegos, A. Galli, J. Gómez-Hernández, P. Grindgrod, A.L. Gutjahr, P.K. Kitanidis, A.M. LaVenue, D. McLaughlin, S.P. Neuman, B.S. RamaRao, C. Ravenne, and Y. Rubin. 1998. A comparison of seven geostatistically based inverse approaches to estimate transmissivities for modeling advective transport by ground water flow. Water Resources Research 34, no. 6: 1373-1413.
45. Zuidema, P. 1994. Validation: Demonstration of disposal safety requires a practicable approach. In Proceedings GEOVAL 1994: Validation Through Model Testing, NEA/SKI Symposium, Paris, France, 35-42. Paris: Nuclear Energy Agency.