Checking for non-preferred file/folder path names (may take a long time depending on the number of files/folders) ...
This resource contains some files/folders that have non-preferred characters in their name. Show non-conforming files/folders.
This resource contains content types with files that need to be updated to match with metadata changes. Show content type files that need updating.
| Authors: |
|
|
|---|---|---|
| Owners: |
|
This resource does not have an owner who is an active HydroShare user. Contact CUAHSI (help@cuahsi.org) for information on this resource. |
| Type: | Resource | |
| Storage: | The size of this resource is 1.5 KB | |
| Created: | Feb 08, 2023 at 1:46 p.m. | |
| Last updated: | Feb 08, 2023 at 1:46 p.m. | |
| Citation: | See how to cite this resource |
| Sharing Status: | Public |
|---|---|
| Views: | 584 |
| Downloads: | 218 |
| +1 Votes: | Be the first one to this. |
| Comments: | No comments (yet) |
Abstract
Uncertainty of groundwater model predictions has in the past mostly been related to uncertainty in the hydraulic parameters, whereas uncertainty in the geological structure has not been considered to the same extent. Recent developments in theoretical methods for quantifying geological uncertainty have made it possible to consider this factor in groundwater modeling. In this study we have applied the multiple-point geostatistical method (MPS) integrated in the Stanford Geostatistical Modeling Software (SGeMS) for exploring the impact of geological uncertainty on groundwater flow patterns for a site in Denmark. Realizations from the geostatistical model were used as input to a groundwater model developed from Modular three-dimensional finite-difference ground-water model (MODFLOW) within the Groundwater Modeling System (GMS) modeling environment. The uncertainty analysis was carried out in three scenarios involving simulation of groundwater head distribution and travel time. The first scenario implied 100 stochastic geological models all assigning the same hydraulic parameters for the same geological units. In the second scenario the same 100 geological models were subjected to model optimization, where the hydraulic parameters for each of them were estimated by calibration against observations of hydraulic head and stream discharge. In the third scenario each geological model was run with 216 randomized sets of parameters. The analysis documented that the uncertainty on the conceptual geological model was as significant as the uncertainty related to the embedded hydraulic parameters.
Subject Keywords
Coverage
Spatial
Content
Additional Metadata
| Name | Value |
|---|---|
| DOI | 10.5194/hess-17-3245-2013 |
| Depth | 300 |
| Scale | 101 - 1 000 km² |
| Layers | 63 |
| Purpose | Groundwater resources |
| GroMoPo_ID | 243 |
| IsVerified | True |
| Model Code | MODFLOW |
| Model Link | https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-17-3245-2013 |
| Model Time | |
| Model Year | 2013 |
| Model Authors | He, X; Sonnenborg, TO; Jorgensen, F; Hoyer, AS; Moller, RR; Jensen, KH |
| Model Country | Denmark |
| Data Available | Report/paper only |
| Developer Email | xih@geo.ku.dk |
| Dominant Geology | Unconsolidated sediments |
| Developer Country | Denmark |
| Publication Title | Analyzing the effects of geological and parameter uncertainty on prediction of groundwater head and travel time |
| Original Developer | No |
| Additional Information | Calibration method used depends on scenario. |
| Integration or Coupling | Surface water;Water use |
| Evaluation or Calibration | |
| Geologic Data Availability | No |
How to Cite
This resource is shared under the Creative Commons Attribution CC BY.
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
Comments
There are currently no comments
New Comment