The practical use of simplicity in developing ground water models

Ground Water

Volumn 44, Issue 6, 2006, Pages 775-781

  Hill, Mary C ^a  

^a U S GEOLOGICAL SURVEY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COMPUTATIONAL COMPLEXITY; COMPUTER SIMULATION; ERROR ANALYSIS; MATHEMATICAL MODELS; PARAMETER ESTIMATION;

GROUND WATER MODELS; ILL-DEFINED PROCESS; SHORTER EXECUTION TIMES;

GROUNDWATER;

WATER;

FLOW MODELING; GROUNDWATER FLOW; SITE CHARACTERIZATION;

CALIBRATION; CONFERENCE PAPER; GEOLOGY; THEORETICAL MODEL; WATER FLOW;

CALIBRATION; GEOLOGY; MODELS, THEORETICAL; WATER; WATER MOVEMENTS;

EID: 33750428609     PISSN: 0017467X     EISSN: 17456584     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-6584.2006.00227.x     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (34)

1. Anderman, E.R., and M.C. Hill. 2000. MODFLOW-2000, the U.S. Geological Survey modular ground-water model, documentation of the Hydrogeologic Unit Flow (HUF) Package: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 00-342, 89 p.
2. Anderson, M.P., and W.W. Woessner. 1992. Applied Groundwater Modeling. San Diego, California: Academic Press.
3. Barlebo, H.C., M.C. Hill, and D. Rosbjerg. 2004. Identification of groundwater parameters at Columbus, Mississippi, using three-dimensional inverse flow and transport model. Water Resources Research 40, no. 4: 1-18. W04211, doi: 10.1029/2002WR001935.
4. Barth, G.R., M.C. Hill, T.H. Illangasekare, and H. Rajaram. 2001. Predictive modeling of flow and transport in a two-dimensional intermediate-scale, heterogeneous porous media. Water Resources Research 37, no. 10: 2503-2512.
5. Bras, R.L., G.E. Tucker, and V. Teles. 2003. Six myths about mathematical modeling in geomorphology. In Predictions in Geomorphology, Geophysical Monograph 135, ed. P.R. Wilcock and R.M. Iverson, 63-79. Washington, D.C.: American Geophysical Union.
6. Burnham, K.P., and D.R. Anderson. 2002. Model Selection and Multi-Mode Inference: A Practical Information-Theoretic Approach. Springer-Verlag, New York, 488 p.
7. Carle, S.F. 1999. T-PROGS: Transitional Probability Geostatistical Software, Version 2.1. Davis, California: Hydrologic Sciences Graduate Group, University of California.
8. Carle, S.F., and G.E. Fogg. 1997. Modeling spatial variability with one- and multidimensional continuous-lag Markov chains. Mathematical Geology 29, no. 8: 891-918.
9. Carle, S.F., E.M. LaBolle, G.S. Weissmann, D. Van Brocklin, and G.E. Fogg. 1998. Conditional simulation of hydrofacies architecture: A transition probability/Markov approach. In Hydrogeologic Models of Sedimentary Aquifers, Concepts in Hydrogeology and Environmental Geology No. 1, SEPM (Society of Sedimentary Geology) Special Publication, ed. G.S. Fraser and J.M. Davis, 147-170. London: Geological Society Publishing.
10. Cvetkovic, V., S. Painter, N. Outters, and J.O. Selroos. 2004. Stochastic simulation of radionuclide migration in discretely fractured rock near the Äspö Hard Rock Laboratory. Water Resources Research 40, no. 2: 1-16. W02404, doi: 10.1029/2003WR002655.
11. D'Agnese, F.A., C.C. Faunt, A.K. Turner, and M.C. Hill. 1997. Hydrogeologic evaluation and numerical simulation of the Death Valley Regional ground-water flow systems, Nevada and California. U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigation Report 96-4300. 124 p.
12. 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. In Special Section on Model Calibration and Reliability Evaluation for Ground-Water Systems, ed. A. Leijnse and M.C. Hill Advances in Water Resources 22, no. 8: 777-790.
13. Doherty, J. 2003. Ground water model calibration using pilot points and regularization. Ground Water 41, no. 2: 170-177.
14. Faunt, C.C., J.B. Blainey, M.C. Hill, F.A. D'Agnese, and G.A. O'Brien. 2004. Transient numerical model of ground-water flow. In Evaluation of the Death Valley Regional Ground-Water Flow System (DVRFS), Nevada and California, USGS Scientific Investigations Report 2004-5205, ed. W. Belcher.
15. Fenelon, J., and M.C. Hill. 2001. Unpublished letter report from the USGS to the U.S. Department of Energy. Las Vegas, Nevada.
16. Gomez-Hernandez, J.J., and R.M. Srivastava. 1990. ISIM3D. An ANSI-C three dimensional multiple indicator conditional simulation program. Computers and Geosciences 16, no. 4: 395-440.
17. Harbaugh, A.W., E.R. Banta, M.C. Hill, and M.G. McDonald. 2000. MODFLOW-2000, the US. Geological Survey modular ground-water model - Users guide to modularization concepts and the ground-water flow process. U.S. Geological Surney Open-File Report 00-92, 121 p.
18. Hill, M.C. 1998. Methods and guidelines for effective model calibration. USGS Water-Resources Investigations Report. http://pubs.water.usgs.gov/ wri984005/.
19. Hill, M.C., E.R. Banta, A.W. Harbaugh, and E.R. Anderman. 2000. MODFLOW-2000, the U.S. Geological Survey modular ground water model, User's guide to the Observation, Sensitivity, and Parameter-Estimation Process and three post-processing programs. U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 00-184, 209 p.
20. Hill, M.C., M.D. Ely, C.R. Tiedeman, F.A. D'Agnese, C.C. Faunt, and B.A. O'Brien. 2001. Preliminary evaluation of the importance of existing hydraulic-head observation locations to advective-transport predictions, Death Valley regional flow system, California and Nevada. USGS Water-Resources Investigations Report 00-4282. http://water.usgs.gov/pubs/wri/wri004282/.
21. Hill, M.C., and C.R. Tiedeman. Effective Groundwater Model Calibration with Analysis of Sensitivities, Predictions, and Uncertainty. New York: Wiley and Sons. In press.
22. LeCain, G.D., L.O. Anna, and M.F. Fahy. 2000. Results from geothermal logging, air and core-water chemistry sampling, air-injection testing, and tracer testing in the northern Ghost Dance Fault, Yucca Mountain, Nevada, November 1996 to August 1998. USGS Water-Resources Investigations Report 99-4210.
23. Murray, A.B. 2003. Contrasting the goals, strategies, and predictions associated with simplified numerical models and detailed simulation. In Predictions in Geomorphology, AGU Geophysical Monograph 135, ed. R.M. Iverson and P. Wilcock, 151-165. Washington, D.C.: AGU.
24. Oreskes, N. 2000. Why believe a computer? Models, measures, and meaning in the natural system. In The Earth Around Us, ed. J. Schneiderman, 70-82. New York: W.H. Freedman.
25. Paola, C., J. Mullin, C. Ellis, D.C. Mohrig, J.B. Swenson, G. Parker, T. Hickson, P.L. Heller, L. Pratson, J. Syvitski, B. Sheets, and N. Strong. 2001. Experimental stratigraphy. GSA Today 11, 4-9.
26. Parker, R.L. 1994. Geophysical Inverse Theory. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
27. Popper, K. 1982. The Open Universe. London, UK: Hutchinson.
28. Saltelli, A., K. Chan, and E.M. Scott. 2000. Sensitivity Analysis. New York: Wiley.
29. Saltelli, A., S. Tarantola, F. Campolongo, and M. Raito. 2004. Sensitivity Analysis in Practice. Wiley, New York. 219 p.
30. Scheibe, T.D., and Y.-J. Chien. 2003. An evaluation of conditioning data for solute transport prediction. Ground Water 41, no. 2: 128-141.
31. Smith, T., M. Hoversten, E. Gasperkiva, and F. Morrison. 1999. Sharp boundary inversion of 2-D magnetotelluric data. Geophysical Prospecting 47, no. 4: 469-486.
32. Tiedeman, C.R., M.C. Hill, F.A. D'Agnese, and C.C. Faunt. 2003. Methods for using groundwater model predictions to guide hydrogeologic data collection, with application to the Death Valley regional ground-water flow system. Water Resources Research 39, no. 1: 1-17. doi: 10.1029/2001WR001255.
33. Tonkin, M.J., and J. Doherty. 2005. A hybrid regularized inversion methodology for highly parameterized environmental models. Water Resources Research 41, W10412, doi: 10.1029/2005WR003995.
34. Yeh, W.W.-G., and Y.S. Yoon. 1981. Aquifer parameter identification with optimum dimension in parameterization. Water Resources Research 17, no. 3: 664-672.