Premium
AN EXERCISE IN GROUND‐WATER MODEL CALIBRATION AND PREDICTION
Author(s) -
Freyberg David L.
Publication year - 1988
Publication title -
groundwater
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.84
H-Index - 94
eISSN - 1745-6584
pISSN - 0017-467X
DOI - 10.1111/j.1745-6584.1988.tb00399.x
Subject(s) - phreatic , aquifer , calibration , hydraulic conductivity , head (geology) , hydraulic head , matching (statistics) , flow (mathematics) , set (abstract data type) , groundwater , groundwater model , geology , soil science , environmental science , mathematics , groundwater flow , statistics , geotechnical engineering , computer science , geomorphology , geometry , soil water , programming language
. For a classroom exercise, nine groups of graduate students calibrated a numerical ground‐water flow model to a set of perfectly observed hydraulic head data for a hypothetical phreatic aquifer. All groups used exactly the same numerical model and identical sets of observed data. After calibration, the students predicted the hydraulic head distribution in the aquifer resulting from a modification in one boundary condition. A quantitative analysis of the results of this calibration‐prediction exercise vividly demonstrates some of the difficulties in parameter identification for ground‐water flow models. Group predictions differed significantly. Successful prediction was strongly correlated with successful estimation of conductivity values, and was essentially unrelated to successful estimation of aquifer bottom elevations or with the number of trial‐and‐error simulations required for calibration. Most importantly, success in prediction was unrelated to success in matching observed heads under premodification conditions. In this sense, good calibration did not lead to good prediction.