Data fusion modeling for groundwater systems

被引:36
作者
Porter, DW
Gibbs, BP
Jones, WF
Huyakorn, PS
Hamm, LL
Flach, GP
机构
[1] Fusion & Control Technol, Annapolis, MD 21401 USA
[2] HydroGeoLog, Herndon, VA 20170 USA
[3] Westinghouse Savannah River Co, Aiken, SC 29808 USA
关键词
groundwater modeling; calibration; geostatistics; inverse modeling; Kalman filter; data assimilation; data fusion;
D O I
10.1016/S0169-7722(99)00081-9
中图分类号
X [环境科学、安全科学];
学科分类号
08 ; 0830 ;
摘要
Engineering projects involving hydrogeology are faced with uncertainties because the earth is heterogeneous, and typical data sets are fragmented and disparate. In theory, predictions provided by computer simulations using calibrated models constrained by geological boundaries provide answers to support management decisions, and geostatistical methods quantify safety margins. In practice, current methods are limited by the data types and models that can be included, computational demands, or simplifying assumptions. Data Fusion Modeling (DFM) removes many of the limitations and is capable of providing data integration and model calibration with quantified uncertainty for a variety of hydrological, geological, and geophysical data types and models. The benefits of DFM for waste management, water supply, and geotechnical applications are savings in time and cost through the ability to produce visual models that fill in missing data and predictive numerical models to aid management optimization. DFM has the ability to update field-scale models in real time using PC or workstation systems and is ideally suited for parallel processing implementation. DFM is a spatial state estimation and system identification methodology that uses three sources of information: measured data, physical laws, and statistical models for uncertainty in spatial heterogeneities. What is new in DFM is the solution of the causality problem in the data assimilation Kalman filter methods to achieve computational practicality. The Kalman filter is generalized by introducing information filter methods due to Bierman coupled with a Markov random field representation for spatial variation. A Bayesian penalty function is implemented with Gauss-Newton methods. This leads to a computational problem similar to numerical simulation of the partial differential equations (PDEs) of groundwater. In fact, extensions of PDE solver ideas to break down computations over space form the computational heart of DFM. State estimates and uncertainties can be computed for heterogeneous hydraulic conductivity fields in multiple geological layers from the usually sparse hydraulic conductivity data and the often more plentiful head data. Further, a system identification theory has been derived based on statistical likelihood principles. A maximum likelihood theory is provided to estimate statistical parameters such as Markov model parameters that determine the geostatistical variogram. Field-scale application of DFM at the DOE Savannah River Site is presented and compared with manual calibration. DFM calibration runs converge in less than 1 h on a Pentium Pro PC for a 3D model with more than 15,000 nodes. Run time is approximately linear with the number of nodes. Furthermore, conditional simulation is used to quantify the statistical variability in model predictions such as contaminant breakthrough curves. Published by Elsevier Science B.V.
引用
收藏
页码:303 / 335
页数:33
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] Integrating multiple data sources in species distribution modeling: a framework for data fusion
    Pacifici, Krishna
    Reich, Brian J.
    Miller, David A. W.
    Gardner, Beth
    Stauffer, Glenn
    Singh, Susheela
    McKerrow, Alexa
    Collazo, Jaime A.
    ECOLOGY, 2017, 98 (03) : 840 - 850
  • [32] Use of Multiple Data Assimilation Techniques in Groundwater Contaminant Transport Modeling
    Rajib, Amirul Islam
    Assumaning, Godwin Appiah
    Chang, Shoou-Yuh
    Addai, Elvis Boamah
    WATER ENVIRONMENT RESEARCH, 2017, 89 (11) : 1952 - 1960
  • [33] Improving the Reliability of Numerical Groundwater Modeling in a Data-Sparse Region
    Du, Xinqiang
    Lu, Xiangqin
    Hou, Jiawei
    Ye, Xueyan
    WATER, 2018, 10 (03)
  • [34] Modeling Reactive Solute Transport in Permafrost-Affected Groundwater Systems
    Mohammed, Aaron A.
    Bense, Victor F.
    Kurylyk, Barret L.
    Jamieson, Rob C.
    Johnston, Lindsay H.
    Jackson, Amy J.
    WATER RESOURCES RESEARCH, 2021, 57 (07)
  • [35] Multirate multisensor data fusion for linear systems using Kalman filters and a neural network
    Safari, Sajjad
    Shabani, Faridoon
    Simon, Dan
    AEROSPACE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, 2014, 39 : 465 - 471
  • [36] Multi-sensor data fusion for accurate surface modeling
    Mahesh K. Singh
    Ashish Dutta
    K. S. Venkatesh
    Soft Computing, 2020, 24 : 14449 - 14462
  • [37] Multi-sensor data fusion for accurate surface modeling
    Sing, Mahesh K.
    Dutta, Ashish
    Venkatesh, K. S.
    SOFT COMPUTING, 2020, 24 (19) : 14449 - 14462
  • [38] ALS AND TLS DATA FUSION IN CULTURAL HERITAGE DOCUMENTATION AND MODELING
    Fryskowska, A.
    Walczykowski, P.
    Delis, P.
    Wojtkowska, M.
    25TH INTERNATIONAL CIPA SYMPOSIUM 2015, 2015, 40-5 (W7): : 147 - 150
  • [39] Pipeline Leak Detection Systems and Data Fusion: A Survey
    Baroudi, Uthman
    Al-Roubaiey, Anas A.
    Devendiran, Abdullah
    IEEE ACCESS, 2019, 7 : 97426 - 97439
  • [40] Modeling and fusion of radar and imaging sensor data for target tracking
    Romine, JB
    Kamen, EW
    OPTICAL ENGINEERING, 1996, 35 (03) : 659 - 673