Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Groundwater Model Development

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Aquifer Characterization Techniques

Part of the book series: Springer Hydrogeology ((SPRINGERHYDRO))

  • 2435 Accesses

Abstract

Aquifer characterization programs are usually performed with the objective of obtaining the data required to develop numerical groundwater models. Groundwater modeling starts with the development of a conceptual model, which is followed by the selection of a modeling code and model discretization. Initial values for the hydraulic and transport properties are then assigned to each model cell or element, which are subject to adjustment during the model calibration process. Predictive simulations are performed to evaluate the response of the aquifer to various stresses (e.g., groundwater pumping scenarios). A deterministic approach has been taken for most groundwater models, in which the goal is to obtain a single solution that represents a ‘best’ estimate of future conditions. The alternative stochastic approach involves running a large number of simulations in a probabilistic framework to explore the range of possible future conditions. The basic premise of stochastic modeling is that due to an incomplete knowledge of the spatial variability of parameters, the decision is made to analyze all (or least numerous) plausible representations of the aquifer. Stochastic modeling has high data requirements and is not a substitute for a robust aquifer characterization program.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 99.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Anderson, M. P. (1997) Characterization of geological heterogeneity. In G. Dagan & S. P. Neuman (Eds.) Subsurface flow and transport: a stochastic approach (pp. 23–43). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, M. P., & Woessner, W. W. (1992). Applied groundwater modeling: simulation of flow and advective transport. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Binley, A., Cassiani, G., & Deiana, P. (2010) Hydrogeophysics: opportunities and challenges. Bollettino di Geofisica Teorica ed Applicata, 51, 267–284.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bredehoeft, J. (2005) The conceptualization model problem—surprise. Hydrogeology journal, 13(1), 37–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bohling, G. C., & Butler, J. J., Jr. (2010) Inherent limitations of hydraulic tomography. Ground Water, 48, 809–824.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dagan, G. (1986) Statistical theory of groundwater flow and transport: Pore to laboratory, laboratory to formation, and formation to regional scale. Water Resources Research, 22(9), 120S to 134S.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Marsily, G., Delay, F., Teles, V., & Schafmeister, M. T. (1998) Some current methods to represent heterogeneity of natural media in hydrogeology. Hydrogeology Journal, 6, 115–130.

    Google Scholar 

  • Diersch, H. J. (1998) FEFLOW: Interactive, graphics-based finite-element simulation system for modeling groundwater flow, contaminant mass and heat transport processes. User’s Manual Version 4.6: Berlin, Germany; WASY, Institute for Water Resources Planning and System Research Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Doherty, J. (2003) Ground water model calibration using pilot points and regularization. Ground Water, 41, 170–177.

    Google Scholar 

  • Doherty, J. E., & Hunt, R. J. (2010). Approaches to highly parameterized inversion: A guide to using PEST for groundwater-model calibration. US Department of the Interior, US Geological Survey.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eaton, T. T. (2006) On the importance of geological heterogeneity for flow simulation. Sedimentary Geology, 184, 187–201.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeze, R. A. (1975) A stochastic-conceptual analysis of one-dimensional groundwater flow in nonuniform homogeneous media. Water Resources Research, 11, 725–741.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeze, R. A. (2004) The role of stochastic hydrogeological modeling in real world engineering applications. Stochastic Environmental Research and Risk Assessment, 18, 286–289.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gelhar, L. W. (1986) Stochastic subsurface hydrology from theory to applications. Water Resources Research, 22(9), 135S-145S.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gómez-Hernández, J. J. (2006) Complexity. Ground Water, 44, 782–785.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gómez-Hernández, J. J., & Gorelick, S. M. (1989) Effective groundwater model parameter values: Influence of spatial variability of hydrulaulic conductivity, leakance, and recharge. Water Resources Research, 25, 405–491.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guo, W., & Langevin, C. D. (2002) User’s guide to SEAWAT: a computer program for simulation of three-dimensional variable-density ground-water flow. U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 01–434.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hill, M. C. (2006) The practical use of simplicity in developing ground water models. Ground Water, 44, 775–781.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hill, M. C., & Tiedeman, C. R. (2006) Effective groundwater model calibration: with analysis of data, sensitivities, predictions, and uncertainty. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Højberg, A. L., & Refsgaard, J. C. (2005) Model uncertainty – parameter uncertainty versus conceptual models. Water Science & Technology, 52(6), 177–186.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hunt, R. J., Doherty, J., & Tonkin, M. J. (2007) Are models too simple? Arguments for increased parameterization. Ground Water, 45, 254–262.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, N. L., Walker, J. R., & Carle, S. F. (2005) Hydrogeologic unit flow characterization using transition probability geostatistics. Ground Water, 43, 285–289.

    Google Scholar 

  • Konikow, L. F. (2011) The secret of successful solute-transport modeling. Ground Water, 49, 144–159.

    Google Scholar 

  • Konikow, L. F., & Bredehoeft, J. D. (1992). Ground-water models cannot be validated. Advances in Water Resources, 15(1), 75–83.

    Google Scholar 

  • Langevin, C. D., Thorne, D. T., Jr., Dausman, A. M., Sukop, M. C., & Weixing, G. (2008) SEAWAT version 4: A computer program for simulation of multi-species solute and heat transport. U.S. Geological Survey Techniques and Methods Book 6, Chapter A22.

    Google Scholar 

  • McDonald, M. G., & Harbaugh, A. W. (1988) A modular three-dimensional finite-difference ground water flow model. U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigation Report 06-A1.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mehl, S., Hill, M. C., & Leake, S. A. (2006). Comparison of local grid refinement methods for MODFLOW. Groundwater, 44, 792–796.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moore, C., & Doherty, J. (2006) The cost of uniqueness in groundwater model calibration. Advances in Water Resources, 29, 605–623.

    Google Scholar 

  • Niswonger, R. G., Prudic, D. E., & Regan, R. S. (2006) Documentation of the Unsaturated-Zone Flow (UZF1) Package for modeling unsaturated flow between the land surface and the water table with MODFLOW-2005. U.S. Geological Survey Techniques and Methods 6-A19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oreskes, N., Shrader-Frechette, K., & Belitz, M. (1994) Verification, validation, and confirmation of numerical models in the Earth Sciences. Science, 263, 641–646.

    Google Scholar 

  • Panday, S., Langevin, C. D., Niswonger, R. G., Ibaraki, M. & Hughes, J. D. (2013) MODFLOW–USG version 1: An unstructured grid version of MODFLOW for simulating groundwater flow and tightly coupled processes using a control volume finite-difference formulation. U.S. Geological Survey Techniques and Methods, Book 6, Chap. A45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pappenberger, F., & Beven, K. J. (2006) Ignorance is bliss: Or seven reasons not to use uncertainty analysis. Water Resources Research, 42, W05302.

    Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, F. M., Wilson, J. L., & Davis, J. M. (1989) Statistical analysis of hydraulic conductivity distributions: A qualitative geological approach. In Proceedings Conference of New Field Techniques for Quantifying the Physical and Chemical Properties of Heterogeneous Aquifers (pp. 19–31). Dublin, Ohio: National Water Well Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Poeter, E. (2007). “All models are wrong, how do we know which are useful?” - Looking back at the 2006 Darcy Lecture tour. Ground Water, 45, 390–391.

    Google Scholar 

  • Poeter, E. P., & McKenna, S. A. (1998) Combining geologic information and inverse parameter estimation to improve groundwater models. In G. S. Fraser & J. M. Davis (Eds.), Hydrogeologic models of sedimentary aquifers. Concepts in Hydrogeology and Environmental Geology No. 1 (pp. 171–188). Tulsa: SEPM.

    Google Scholar 

  • Poeter, E. P., Wingle, W. S., & McKenna, S. A. (1997) Improvising groundwater project analysis with geophysical data. The Leading Edge, 16, 1675–1681.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pollock, D .W. (1994) User’s guide for MODPATH/MODPATH-PLOT version 2: A particle tracking post-processing package for MODFLOW, the U.S. Geological Survey finite-difference ground-water flow model. U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 94-464.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prommer, H., Barry, D. A., & Zheng, C. (2003) MODFLOW/MT3DMS based reactive multi-component transport modeling. Ground Water, 41, 347–257.

    Google Scholar 

  • Refsgaard, J. C., Christensen, S., Sonnenborg, T. D., Seifert, D., Højberg, A. L., & Troldborg, L. (2012) Review of strategies for handling geological uncertainty in groundwater flow and transport modeling. Advances in Water Resources, 36, 36–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Renard, P. (2007) Stochastic hydrogeology: What professions really need? Ground Water, 45(5), 531–541.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schlumberger (n.d.) ECLIPSE industry reference reservoir simulator. Retrieved from http://www.software.slb.com/products/foundation/Pages/eclipse.aspx.

  • Sepúlveda, N, & Doherty, J. (2015) Uncertainty analysis of a groundwater flow model in east-central Florida. Groundwater, 53(3), 464–474.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, L. (1981) Spatial variability for flow parameters in a stratified sand. Mathematical Geology, 13(1), 1–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trolborg, L., Refsgaard, J. C., Jenson, K. H., & Engesgaard, P. (2007) The importance of alternative conceptual models for simulation of concentrations in multi-aquifer. Hydrogeology Journal, 15, 843–860.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winter, C. L., 2004, Stochastic hydrology: practical alternatives exist. Stochastic Environmental Research and Risk Assessment, 18, 271–273.

    Google Scholar 

  • Webb, E. K., & Davis, M. (1998) Simulation of the spatial heterogeneity of geologic properties: An overview. In G. S. Fraser & J. M. Davis (Eds.), Hydrogeologic models of sedimentary aquifers. Concepts in Hydrogeology and Environmental Geology No. 1 (pp. 1–24). Tulsa: SEPM.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yeh, T. -C., J. (1992) Stochastic modeling of groundwater flow and solute-transport in aquifers. Hydrological Processes, 6, 369–395.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, D. (2003) Stochastic methods for flow in porous media: Coping with uncertainties. San Diego: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zheng, C., & Wang, P. P. (1999) MT3DMS: a modular three-dimensional multi-species model for simulation of advection, dispersion and chemical reactions of contaminants in ground water systems: documentation and user’s guide. Report SERDP-99-1.Vicksburg, Mississippi: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Schlumberger Water Services, Fort Myers, FL, USA

    Robert G. Maliva

Authors
  1. Robert G. Maliva
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Robert G. Maliva .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Maliva, R.G. (2016). Groundwater Model Development. In: Aquifer Characterization Techniques. Springer Hydrogeology. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-32137-0_19

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation