Advertisement

The Groundwater and the Groundwater Quality Management Problem: Reliability and Solution Techniques

  • T. Tucciarelli
Part of the International Centre for Mechanical Sciences book series (CISM, volume 364)

Abstract

The groundwater and the groundwater quality management models are defined as an engineering decision problem. The solution of this problem is not trivial and can be reached with the use of deterministic or stochastic techniques. The determistic approaches (Primal Method) compute only local minima, or the global minimum (Outer Approximation Methods) only according to strict hypothesis. The stochastic methods (Simulated Annealing, Genetic Algorithms or Neural Networks) find the global minimum, but only in statistical sense. The most recent approaches to the problem treat the physical parameters (transmissivity) as a random field. The uncertainty of the transmissivity makes impossible to guarantee the feasibility of the optimal strategy. A reliability level is defined as the ratio between the number of realizations that mantain feasible the optimal solution out of the total number of realizations. Some of the algorithms proposed to reach a fixed reliability are discussed. The idea of linking the goal of the management problem with the number and location of new field measurements is introduced.

Keywords

Simulated Annealing Reliability Level Natural Parameter Installation Cost Feasible Domain 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Male, J.W. and F.A. Mueller: Model for prescribing groundwater use permits, J. Water Resour. Plann. Manag. Div. Am. Soc. Civ. Eng., 118 (5), 543–561, 1992.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lehr, J.H. and D.H. Nielsen: Aquifer restoration and groundwater rehabilitation, Groundwater, 20 (6), 650–656, 1982.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Galeati, G. and G. Gambolati: Optimal dewatering schemes in the foundation design of an electronuclear plant, Water Resour. Res., 24 (4), 541–552, 1988.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Wagner, J.M., U. Shamir and H.R. Nemati: Groundwater quality management under uncertainty: stochastic programming approaches and the value of information, Water Resour. Res., 28 (5), 1233–1246, 1992.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Tiedeman, C., and S.M. Gorelick, Analysis of uncertainty in optimal groundwater contaminant capture design, Water Resour. Res., 29 (7), 2139–2153, 1993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Carrera, J. and S.P. Neuman: Estimation of aquifer parameters under transient and steady state conditions: 1. Maximum likelihood method incorporating prior information, Water Resour. Res., 22 (2), 199–210, 1986.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Karatzas, G.P., T. Tucciarelli and G.F. Pinder: Groundwater quality management using numerical simulation and a primal optimization technique, Proceedings of Computational Methods in Water Resources X, Kluwer Academic Publisher, July 1994.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Culver, T.B. and C.A. Shoemaker: Dynamic optimal control for groundwater remediation with flexible management periods, Water Resour. Res., 28 (3), 629–641, 1992.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Aguado E. and I. Remson: Groundwater management with fixed charges, Water Resour. Plann. Manag. Div. Am. Soc. Civ. Eng., 106 (2), 375–382, 1980.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Karatzas, G.P. and G.F. Pinder: Groundwater management using numerical simulation and the outer approximation method for global optimization, Water Resour. Res., 29 (10), 3371–3378, 1993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Goldberg, D.E.: Genetic algorithms, Addison-Wesley, 1989.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dougherty, D.E. and R.A. Marryott: Optimal groundwater management:l. Simulated annealing, Water Resour. Res., 27 (10), 2493–2509, 1991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ranjithan S., J.W. Eheart and J.H. Garrett: Neural network-based screening for groundwater reclamation under uncertainty, Water Resour. Res., 29 (3), 563–574, 1993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    McLaughlin, D. and E.F. Wood: A distributed parameter approach for evaluating the accuracy of groundwater model predictions. 1. Theory, Water Resour. Res., 24(7), 1048–1060, 1988.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wagner, B.J. and S.M. Gorelick: Optimal groundwater quality management under parameter uncertainty,’ Water Resour. Res., 23 (7), 1162–1174, 1987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wagner, B.J. and S.M. Gorelick, Reliable aquifer remediation in the presence of spatially variable hydraulic conductivity: from data to design, Water Resour. Res., 25 (10), 2211–2225, 1989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Morgan, D.R., J.W. Eheart. and A. J. Valocchi: Aquifer remediation design under uncertainty using a new chance constrained programming technique, Water Resour. Res., 29 (3), 551–561, 1993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Maddock, T.: Management model as a tool for studying the worth of data, Water Resour. Res., 9 (2), 270–280, 1973.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Tucciarelli, T. and G. Pinder: Optimal data acquisition strategy for the development of a transport model for groundwater remediation, Water Resour. Res., 27 (4), 577–588, 1991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    McCarthy, J.M. and W. W-G. Yeh: Optimal pumping design for parameter estimation and prediction in groundwater hydrology, Water Resour. Res., 26 (4), 779–791, 1990.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Wien 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • T. Tucciarelli
    • 1
  1. 1.University of Reggio CalabriaReggio CalabriaItaly

Personalised recommendations