Premium
A Model‐Averaging Method for Assessing Groundwater Conceptual Model Uncertainty
Author(s) -
Ye Ming,
Pohlmann Karl F.,
Chapman Jenny B.,
Pohll Greg M.,
Reeves Donald M.
Publication year - 2010
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.1745-6584.2009.00633.x
Subject(s) - groundwater recharge , uncertainty analysis , parametric statistics , glue , groundwater flow , hydrogeology , groundwater model , sensitivity analysis , hydraulic conductivity , hydrology (agriculture) , monte carlo method , groundwater , hydrological modelling , parametric model , environmental science , geology , soil science , geotechnical engineering , mathematics , statistics , engineering , aquifer , climatology , mechanical engineering , soil water
This study evaluates alternative groundwater models with different recharge and geologic components at the northern Yucca Flat area of the Death Valley Regional Flow System (DVRFS), USA. Recharge over the DVRFS has been estimated using five methods, and five geological interpretations are available at the northern Yucca Flat area. Combining the recharge and geological components together with additional modeling components that represent other hydrogeological conditions yields a total of 25 groundwater flow models. As all the models are plausible given available data and information, evaluating model uncertainty becomes inevitable. On the other hand, hydraulic parameters (e.g., hydraulic conductivity) are uncertain in each model, giving rise to parametric uncertainty. Propagation of the uncertainty in the models and model parameters through groundwater modeling causes predictive uncertainty in model predictions (e.g., hydraulic head and flow). Parametric uncertainty within each model is assessed using Monte Carlo simulation, and model uncertainty is evaluated using the model averaging method. Two model‐averaging techniques (on the basis of information criteria and GLUE) are discussed. This study shows that contribution of model uncertainty to predictive uncertainty is significantly larger than that of parametric uncertainty. For the recharge and geological components, uncertainty in the geological interpretations has more significant effect on model predictions than uncertainty in the recharge estimates. In addition, weighted residuals vary more for the different geological models than for different recharge models. Most of the calibrated observations are not important for discriminating between the alternative models, because their weighted residuals vary only slightly from one model to another.