Geology ReportsSearch

Geology topics

Eileen P. Poeter

Publications and source records attributed to Eileen P. Poeter.

10 recordsLinked to original sources

A computer program for uncertainty analysis integrating regression and Bayesian methods

This work develops a new functionality in UCODE_2014 to evaluate Bayesian credible intervals using the Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) method. The MCMC capability in UCODE_2014 is based on the FORTRAN version of the differential evolution adaptive Metropolis (DREAM) algorithm of Vrugt et al. (2009), which estimates the posterior probability density function of model parameters in high-dimensional and multimodal sampling problems. The UCODE MCMC capability provides eleven prior probability distributions and three ways to initialize the sampling process. It evaluates parametric and predictive uncertainties and it has parallel computing capability based on multiple chains to accelerate the sampling process. This paper tests and demonstrates the MCMC capability using a 10-dimensional multimodal mathematical function, a 100-dimensional Gaussian function, and a groundwater reactive transport model. The use of the MCMC capability is made straightforward and flexible by adopting the JUPITER API protocol. With the new MCMC capability, UCODE_2014 can be used to calculate three types of uncertainty intervals, which all can account for prior information: (1) linear confidence intervals which require linearity and Gaussian error assumptions and typically 10s–100s of highly parallelizable model runs after optimization, (2) nonlinear confidence intervals which require a smooth objective function surface and Gaussian observation error assumptions and typically 100s–1,000s of partially parallelizable model runs after optimization, and (3) MCMC Bayesian credible intervals which require few assumptions and commonly 10,000s–100,000s or more partially parallelizable model runs. Ready access allows users to select methods best suited to their work, and to compare methods in many circumstances.

Environmental Modelling and Software

Consumptive use and resulting leach-field water budget of a mountain residence

Consumptive use of water in a dispersed rural community has important implications for maximum housing density and its effects on sustainability of groundwater withdrawals. Recent rapid growth in Colorado, USA has stressed groundwater supplies in some areas, thereby increasing scrutiny of approximate methods developed there more than 30 years ago to estimate consumptive use that are still used today. A foothills residence was studied during a 2-year period to estimate direct and indirect water losses. Direct losses are those from evaporation inside the home, plus any outdoor use. Indirect loss is evapotranspiration ( ET ) from the residential leach-field in excess of ET from the immediately surrounding terrain. Direct losses were 18.7% of water supply to the home, substantially larger than estimated historically in Colorado. A new approach was developed to estimate indirect loss, using chamber methods together with the Penman–Monteith model. Indirect loss was only 0.9% of water supply, but this value probably was anomalously low due to a recurring leach-field malfunction. Resulting drainage beneath the leach-field was 80.4% of water supply. Guidelines are given to apply the same methodology at other sites and combine results with a survey of leach-fields in an area to obtain more realistic average values of ET losses.

Colorado

SIM_ADJUST -- A computer code that adjusts simulated equivalents for observations or predictions

This report documents the SIM_ADJUST computer code. SIM_ADJUST surmounts an obstacle that is sometimes encountered when using universal model analysis computer codes such as UCODE_2005 (Poeter and others, 2005), PEST (Doherty, 2004), and OSTRICH (Matott, 2005; Fredrick and others (2007). These codes often read simulated equivalents from a list in a file produced by a process model such as MODFLOW that represents a system of interest. At times values needed by the universal code are missing or assigned default values because the process model could not produce a useful solution. SIM_ADJUST can be used to (1) read a file that lists expected observation or prediction names and possible alternatives for the simulated values; (2) read a file produced by a process model that contains space or tab delimited columns, including a column of simulated values and a column of related observation or prediction names; (3) identify observations or predictions that have been omitted or assigned a default value by the process model; and (4) produce an adjusted file that contains a column of simulated values and a column of associated observation or prediction names. The user may provide alternatives that are constant values or that are alternative simulated values. The user may also provide a sequence of alternatives. For example, the heads from a series of cells may be specified to ensure that a meaningful value is available to compare with an observation located in a cell that may become dry. SIM_ADJUST is constructed using modules from the JUPITER API, and is intended for use on any computer operating system. SIM_ADJUST consists of algorithms programmed in Fortran90, which efficiently performs numerical calculations.

Ground Water Modeling Investigation Report

MMA, A Computer Code for Multi-Model Analysis

This report documents the Multi-Model Analysis (MMA) computer code. MMA can be used to evaluate results from alternative models of a single system using the same set of observations for all models. As long as the observations, the observation weighting, and system being represented are the same, the models can differ in nearly any way imaginable. For example, they may include different processes, different simulation software, different temporal definitions (for example, steady-state and transient models could be considered), and so on. The multiple models need to be calibrated by nonlinear regression. Calibration of the individual models needs to be completed before application of MMA. MMA can be used to rank models and calculate posterior model probabilities. These can be used to (1) determine the relative importance of the characteristics embodied in the alternative models, (2) calculate model-averaged parameter estimates and predictions, and (3) quantify the uncertainty of parameter estimates and predictions in a way that integrates the variations represented by the alternative models. There is a lack of consensus on what model analysis methods are best, so MMA provides four default methods. Two are based on Kullback-Leibler information, and use the AIC (Akaike Information Criterion) or AICc (second-order-bias-corrected AIC) model discrimination criteria. The other two default methods are the BIC (Bayesian Information Criterion) and the KIC (Kashyap Information Criterion) model discrimination criteria. Use of the KIC criterion is equivalent to using the maximum-likelihood Bayesian model averaging (MLBMA) method. AIC, AICc, and BIC can be derived from Frequentist or Bayesian arguments. The default methods based on Kullback-Leibler information have a number of theoretical advantages, including that they tend to favor more complicated models as more data become available than do the other methods, which makes sense in many situations. Many applications of MMA will be well served by the default methods provided. To use the default methods, the only required input for MMA is a list of directories where the files for the alternate models are located. Evaluation and development of model-analysis methods are active areas of research. To facilitate exploration and innovation, MMA allows the user broad discretion to define alternatives to the default procedures. For example, MMA allows the user to (a) rank models based on model criteria defined using a wide range of provided and user-defined statistics in addition to the default AIC, AICc, BIC, and KIC criteria, (b) create their own criteria using model measures available from the code, and (c) define how each model criterion is used to calculate related posterior model probabilities. The default model criteria rate models are based on model fit to observations, the number of observations and estimated parameters, and, for KIC, the Fisher information matrix. In addition, MMA allows the analysis to include an evaluation of estimated parameter values. This is accomplished by allowing the user to define unreasonable estimated parameter values or relative estimated parameter values. An example of the latter is that it may be expected that one parameter value will be less than another, as might be the case if two parameters represented the hydraulic conductivity of distinct materials such as fine and coarse sand. Models with parameter values that violate the user-defined conditions are excluded from further consideration by MMA. Ground-water models are used as examples in this report, but MMA can be used to evaluate any set of models for which the required files have been produced. MMA needs to read files from a separate directory for each alternative model considered. The needed files are produced when using the Sensitivity-Analysis or Parameter-Estimation mode of UCODE_2005, or, possibly, the equivalent capability of another program. MMA is constructed using

Techniques and Methods

Evaluating uncertainty in predicting spatially variable representative elementary scales in fractured aquifers, with application to Turkey Creek Basin, Colorado

Computational limitations and sparse field data often mandate use of continuum representation for modeling hydrologic processes in large‐scale fractured aquifers. Selecting appropriate element size is of primary importance because continuum approximation is not valid for all scales. The traditional approach is to select elements by identifying a single representative elementary scale (RES) for the region of interest. Recent advances indicate RES may be spatially variable, prompting unanswered questions regarding the ability of sparse data to spatially resolve continuum equivalents in fractured aquifers. We address this uncertainty of estimating RES using two techniques. In one technique we employ data‐conditioned realizations generated by sequential Gaussian simulation. For the other we develop a new approach using conditioned random walks and nonparametric bootstrapping (CRWN). We evaluate the effectiveness of each method under three fracture densities, three data sets, and two groups of RES analysis parameters. In sum, 18 separate RES analyses are evaluated, which indicate RES magnitudes may be reasonably bounded using uncertainty analysis, even for limited data sets and complex fracture structure. In addition, we conduct a field study to estimate RES magnitudes and resulting uncertainty for Turkey Creek Basin, a crystalline fractured rock aquifer located 30 km southwest of Denver, Colorado. Analyses indicate RES does not correlate to rock type or local relief in several instances but is generally lower within incised creek valleys and higher along mountain fronts. Results of this study suggest that (1) CRWN is an effective and computationally efficient method to estimate uncertainty, (2) RES predictions are well constrained using uncertainty analysis, and (3) for aquifers such as Turkey Creek Basin, spatial variability of RES is significant and complex.

Water Resources Research

Interpreting DNAPL saturations in a laboratory-scale injection using one- and two-dimensional modeling of GPR Data

Ground-penetrating radar (GPR) is used to track a dense non-aqueous phase liquid (DNAPL) injection in a laboratory sand tank. Before modeling, the GPR data provide a qualitative image of DNAPL saturation and movement. One-dimensional (1D) GPR modeling provides a quantitative interpretation of DNAPL volume within a given thickness during and after the injection. DNAPL saturation in sublayers of a specified thickness could not be quantified because calibration of the 1D GPR model is nonunique when both permittivity and depth of multiple layers are unknown. One-dimensional GPR modeling of the sand tank indicates geometric interferences in a small portion of the tank. These influences are removed from the interpretation using an alternate matching target. Two-dimensional (2D) GPR modeling provides a qualitative interpretation of the DNAPL distribution through pattern matching and tests for possible 2D influences that are not accounted for in the 1D GPR modeling. Accurate quantitative interpretation of DNAPL volumes using GPR modeling requires (1) identification of a suitable target that produces a strong reflection and is not subject to any geometric interference; (2) knowledge of the exact depth of that target; and (3) use of two-way radar-wave travel times through the medium to the target to determine the permittivity of the intervening material, which eliminates reliance on signal amplitude. With geologic conditions that are suitable for GPR surveys (i.e., shallow depths, low electrical conductivities, and a known reflective target), the procedures in this laboratory study can be adapted to a field site to delineate shallow DNAPL source zones.

Ground Water Monitoring and Remediation

Interpreting DNAPL saturations in a laboratory-scale injection with GPR data and direct core measurements

Ground penetrating radar (GPR) is used to track a dense non-aqueous phase liquid (DNAPL) injection in a laboratory sand tank. Before data reduction, GPR data provide a qualitative measure of DNAPL saturation and movement. One-dimensional (1D) GPR modeling provides a quantitative interpretation of DNAPL volume within a given thickness during and after the injection. This is confirmed qualitatively by visual inspection of cores and two-dimensional GPR modeling. DNAPL saturation in sub-layers of that thickness could not be quantified because calibration of the 1D GPR model is non-unique when both permittivity and depth of multiple layers are unknown. Accurate quantitative interpretation of DNAPL volumes using 1D GPR modeling requires: 1) identification of a suitable target that produces a strong reflection and is not subject to any multidimensional interference; 2) knowledge of the exact depth of that target; and 3) use of two-way radar-wave travel times through the medium to the target to determine the permittivity of the intervening material, which eliminates reliance upon reflection amplitude. With geologic conditions that are suitable for GPR surveys (i.e., shallow depths and low electrical conductivities), the procedures in this laboratory study can be adapted to a field site to identify DNAPL source zones after a release has occurred.

Open-File Report

Modeling GPR data to interpret porosity and DNAPL saturations for calibration of a 3-D multiphase flow simulation

Dense nonaqueous phase liquids (DNAPLs) are a pervasive and persistent category of groundwater contamination. In an effort to better understand their unique subsurface behavior, a controlled and carefully monitored injection of PCE (perchloroethylene), a typical DNAPL, was performed in conjunction with the University of Waterloo at Canadian Forces Base Borden in 1991. Of the various geophysical methods used to monitor the migration of injected PCE, the U.S. Geological Survey collected 500-MHz ground penetrating radar (GPR) data. These data are used in determining calibration parameters for a multiphase flow simulation. GPR data were acquired over time on a fixed two-dimensional surficial grid as the DNAPL was injected into the subsurface. Emphasis is on the method of determining DNAPL saturation values from this time-lapse GPR data set. Interactive full-waveform GPR modeling of regularized field traces resolves relative dielectric permittivity versus depth profiles for pre-injection and later-time data. Modeled values are end members in recursive calculations of the Bruggeman-Hanai-Sen (BHS) mixing formula, yielding interpreted pre-injection porosity and post-injection DNAPL saturation values. The resulting interpreted physical properties of porosity and DNAPL saturation of the Borden test cell, defined on a grid spacing of 50 cm with 1-cm depth resolution, are used as observations for calibration of a 3-D multiphase flow simulation. Calculated values of DNAPL saturation in the subsurface at 14 and 22 hours after the start of injection, from both the GPR and the multiphase flow modeling, are interpolated volumetrically and presented for visual comparison.

Open-File Report

Presentation and evaluation of a new multi-stage parameter estimation method using advective transport observations

Observations of advective groundwater transport, generally inferred from concentration measurements, have been found to help in the estimation of groundwater flow parameters. Transverse dispersion, however, can make it difficult to determine the location of the groundwater advective front directly from concentration measurements. A three-stage iterative procedure is developed to estimate groundwater flow and transport parameters from head and concentration data, and is tested using an analytical model. The results are compared to those obtained when advective and dispersive transport parameters are estimated simultaneously. The iterative procedure can be effective at estimating advective and dispersive parameters that improve the fit to the concentration data, but the simultaneous procedure generally produces a better, optimal fit to the concentration data and, therefore, estimates more accurate and precise parameters values. This is accomplished in fewer iterations. It had been anticipated that this iterative procedure might be effective and efficient for using concentration data to estimate parameters of numerical models, but these preliminary results suggest that its utility is limited.

Book chapter