Estimation of Parameters in Groundwater Modeling by Particle Filter linked to the meshless local Petrov-Galerkin Numerical Method

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, University of Sistan and Baluchestan, Zahedan, Iran.

2 Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, University of Birjand, Birjand, Iran.

Abstract

The present study employs a mathematical method, i.e. Particle Filter (PF), to accurately estimate the parameters of three standard aquifers. The method is linked to a new developed numerical method, i.e. meshless local Petrov-Galerkin based on the moving kriging method (PF-MLPG-MK), to determine the aquifer parameters such as hydraulic conductivity coefficient, transmissivity coefficient, and storage coefficient or specific yield appropriately. For this purpose, a set of particles scattered in the state space. Each particle has two features: location and weight. Particles with greater weight values have the closer location to the estimation. Weight values which are assigned to each particle is computed based on the maximum likelihood function. This function is calculated in MLPG-MK simulation model. Overall, by linking particle filter model to the accurate simulation model, an efficient estimation method for aquifer parameters is obtained. This model applied to three standard aquifers. In the first standard aquifer, the estimated parameters of hydraulic conductivity and specific yield were 30.21 and 0.143, respectively. However, the exact values are 30 and 0.15. Also, in the second standard aquifer, the predicted transmissivity and storage coefficients were 99.7038 and 0.001057 whereas their true values are 100 and 0.001. In the third aquifer, the exact value of six parameters were achieved. The sensitivity analysis of the number of particles was carried out. Results revealed that with increasing the particles more accuracy will be achieved. 60, 80 and 100 particles were considered in the model. Results for 100 particles showed more accuracy.

Keywords

References

  1. Nayak P, SatyajiRao Y, Sudheer K, (2006). Groundwater level forcasting in a shallow aquifer using artificial, Water Resources Management, pp: 20:77-90.
  2. Sreekanth PD, Sreedevi PD, Ahmed S, Geethanjali N, (2010). Comparison of FFNN and ANFIS models for estimating groundwater level, Environmental Earth Science, pp: 62:1301-1310.
  3. Prinos S, Lietz A, Irvin R, Design of a real-time groundwater level monitoring network and portrayal of hydrologic data in southern Floria, US Geological Survey Report, Tallahassee, 2002.
  4. Moosavi V, Vafakhah M, Shirmohammadi B, Behnia N, (2013). Awavelet-ANFIS hybrid model for groundwater level forecasting for different prediction periods, Water Resources Management, pp: 27:1301-1321.
  5. Swathi, B. Eldho, T. I. (2014). Inverse Modeling Of Groundwater System Using Coupled PSO-MLPG Techniques, in International Conference on Hydroinformatics, University of New York (CUNY).
  6. Chen T, Morris J, Martin E, (2004). Particle Filters for the Estimation of a State Space Model, European Symposium on Computer-Aided Process Engineering, pp: 613-618.
  7. Chen T, Morris J, Martin E, (2005). Particle filters for state and parameter estimation in batch processes, Journal of Process Control, pp: 15:665-673.
  8. Kourakos G, Mantoglou A, (2012). Inverse groundwater modeling with emphasis on model parameterization, Water Resources Research, pp: 48:1-15.
  9. Rai SP, (1985). Numerical determination of aquifer constants, Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, pp: 111:1110-1114.
  10. Carrera J, Neuman SP, (1986). Estimation of Aquifer Parameters Under: Transient and Steady State Conditions: Maximum Likelihood Method Incorporating Prior Information, Water Resources Research, pp: 22(2):199-210.
  11. YEH WWG, (1986). Review of Parameter Identification Procedures in Groundwater Hydrology: The Inverse Problem, Water Resources Research, pp: 22(2):95-108.
  12. Yeh H, (1987). Theis’ solution by nonlinear least-squares and finite-difference Newton’s method. Groundwater, pp: 25:710-715.
  13. Eppstein MJ, Dougherty DE, (1996). Simultaneous estimation of transmissivity values and zonation, Water Resources Research , pp: 32(11):3321-3336.
  14. Parsad KL, Rastogi A, (2001). Estimating net aquifer recharge and zonal hydraulic conductivity values for Mahi Right Bank Canal project area, India by genetic algorithm, Journal of Hydrology, pp: 243:149-161.
  15. Karahan H, Ayvaz MT, (2008). Simultaneous parameter identification of a heterogeneous aquifer system using artificial neural networks, Hydrogeology Journal, pp: 16:817-827.
  16. Carrera J, Alcolea A, Medina A, Hidalgo J, (2005). Inverse problem in hydrogeology, Hydrogeology Journal, pp: 13(1):206-222.
  17. Hill MC, (2006). The Practical Use of Simplicity in Developing Ground Water Models, Groundwater, pp: 44(6):775-781.
  18. Fu J, Gómez-Hernández JJ, (2009). Uncertainty assessment and data worth in groundwater flow and mass transport modeling using a blocking Markov chain Monte Carlo method, Journal of Hydrology, pp: 364:328-341.
  19. Ayvaz MT, Karahan H, Aral MM, (2007). Aquifer parameter and zone structure estimation using kernel-based fuzzy c-means clustering and genetic algorithm, Journal of Hydrology, pp: 343:240-253.
  20. Copty NK, Trinchero P, Sanchez-Vila X, (2011). Inferring spatial distribution of the radially integrated transmissivity from pumping tests in heterogeneous confined aquifers, Water Resources Research, pp: 47(5):1-16.
  21. Sahin AU, (2016). A new parameter estimation procedure for pumping test analysis using a radial basis function collocation method, Environmental Earth Science, pp: 75(200):1-13.
  22. Swathi B, Eldho, TI, (2018). Aquifer parameter and zonation structure estimation using meshless local Petrov–Galerkin method and particle swarm optimization. Journal of Hydroinformatics, pp: 20(2):457-467.
  23. Naderi M, (2019). Estimating confined aquifer parameters using a simple derivative-based method, Heiyon, pp: 5:1-9.
  24. Thomas A, Majumdar P, Eldho TI, Rastogi AK, (2018). Simulation optimization model for aquifer parameter estimation using coupled meshfree point collocation method and cat swarm optimization. Engineering Analysis with Boundary Elements, pp: 91:60-72.
  25. Thomas A, Eldho TI, Rastogi AK, Majumder P, (2019). A comparative study in aquifer parameter estimation using MFree point collocation method with evolutionary algorithms, Journal of Hydroinformatics, pp: 21(3):455-473.
  26. Eryiğit M, (2021). Estimation of parameters in groundwater modelling by modified clonalg. Journal of Hydroinformatics, pp: 23(2):298-306.
  27. Swathi B, Eldho TI, (2017). Groundwater flow simulation in unconfined aquifers using meshless local Petrov-Galerkin method," Engineering Analysis with Boundary Elements, pp: 48:43-52.
  28. Mohtashami A, Akbarpour A, Mollazadeh M, (2017a). Development of two dimensional groundwater flow simulation model using meshless method based on MLS approximation function in unconfined aquifer in transient state, Journal of Hydroinformatics, pp: 19(5):640-652.
  29. Pathania T, Bottacin-Busolin A, Rastogi AK, Eldho TI. (2019). Simulation of Groundwater Flow in an Unconfined Sloping Aquifer Using the Element-Free Galerkin Method, Water Resources Management, pp: 33:2827–2845.
  30. Kambhampati, S. R.: Target/Object Tracking Using Particle Filtering, Wichita: Wichita State University, 2008.
  31. Fearnhead P, Kuensch HR, (2018). Particle Filters and Data Assimilation, Annual Review of Statistics and Its Application, pp: 5(1):421-449.
  32. Havangi R, (2016). Increasing consistency of particle filter using the classic method and particle swarm algorithm. Computational Intelligence in Electrical Engineering, pp: 7(2):77-88.
  33. Arulampalam S, Maskell S, Gordon N, Clapp T, (2002). tutorialon particle filters for Online nonlinear/nongaussian Bayesian tracking, IEEE Transaction Signal Process, pp: 50(2):174-188.
  34. Ristic B, Arulampalam, S. Gordon, N.: in Beyond Kalman Filter:Particle Filters Tracking Applicant, Boston: 1st ed, 2004.
  35. Li T, Bolic M, Djuric PM, (2015). Resampling Methods for Particle Filtering: Classification, implementation and strategies, IEEE Signal Processing Magazine, pp: 32(3):70-86.
  36. Choe G, Wang T, Liu F, Hyon S, Ha J, (2015). Particle filter with spline resampling and global transition model, IET Computer Vision, pp: 19(2):184-197.
  37. Ruknudeen F, Asokan S, (2017). Application Particle Filter to On-Board Life Estimation of LED Lights, IEEE Photonics Journal, pp: 9(3):1-16.
  38. Manoli G, Rossi M, Pasetto D, Deiana R, Ferraris S, Cassiani G, Putti M, (2015). An iterative particle filter approach for coupled hydro-geophysical inversion of a controlled infiltration experiment, Journal of Computational Physics, pp: 283:37-51.
  39. Field G, Tavrisov G, Brown C, Harris A, Kreidl OP, (2016), Particle Filters to Estimate Properties of Confined Aquifers, Water Resources Management, pp: 30:3175-3189.
  40. Liu G, Mesh Free Methods: Moving Beyond the Finite Element Method, Boca Raton: CRC press, 2002.
  41. Porfiri M, Analysis by Meshless Local Petrov-Galerkin Method of Material Discontinuities, Pull-in Instability in MEMS, Vibrations of Cracked Beams, and Finite Deformations of Rubberlike Materials, Virginia: Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, 2006.
  42. Liu GR, Gu YT, An introduction to Meshfree Methods and Their Programming, Singapore: Springer, 2005.
  43. Atluri SN, Zhu TL, (2000). A new meshless local Petrov-Galerkin (MLPG) approach for solving problems in computational mechanics, Computational Mechanics, pp: 22:117-127.
  44. Mohtashami A, Akbarpour A, Mollazadeh M, (2017b). Modeling of groundwater flow in unconfined aquifer in steady state with meshless local Petrov-Galerkin, Modares Mechanical Engineering, pp: 17(2):393-403.
  45. Wang HF, Anderson MP, Introduction to groundwater modeling: finite difference and finite element methods. first ed. s.l.:Academic Press, 1995.
  46. Park YC, Leap D, (2000). Modeling groundwater flow with a free and moving boundary using the element-free Galerkin (EFG) method, Geosciences Journal, pp: 4(3):243-249.
  47. Wang HF, Anderson MP, Introduction to groundwater modeling: finite difference and finite element methods, first ed., Academic Press, 1995.
  48. Dupouit J, Estudes Theoriques et Pratiques sur le Mouvement desEaux, Paris: Dunod, 1863.
  49. Kulkarni NH, (2015). Numerical simulation of groundwater recharge from an injection well, International Journal of Water Resources and Environmental Engineering, pp: 7(5):75-83.
  50. Sadeghi Tabas S, Samadi SZ, Akbarpour A, Pourreza Bilondi M, (2016), Sustainable groundwater modeling using single-and multi-objective optimization algorithms, Journal of Hydroinformatics, pp: 18(5):1-18.
  51. Sadeghi-Tabas S, Akbarpour A, Pourreza-Bilondi M, Samadi S, (2016). Toward reliable calibration of aquifer hydrodynamic parameters: characterizing and optimization of arid groundwater system using swarm intelligence optimization algorithm. Arabian Journal of Geosciences, pp: 9(18):1-12.
  52. Hamraz B, Akbarpour A, Bilondi MP, Sadeghi-Tabas S, (2015). On the assessment of ground water parameter uncertainty over an arid aquifer. Arabian journal of Geosciences, pp: 8(12):10759-10773.
  53. Thomas, A. Eldho, T. I. Rastogi, A. K. (2012). Ground Water Flow Simulation Using Meshfree Method and Fem. in Proceedings of National Conference on Hydraulics, Water Resources, Coastal and Environmental Engineering (HYDRO-2012), Bombay, India.
  54. Mategaonkar M, Eldho TI, (2011). Meshless Point Collocation Method for Ld And 2d Groundwater Flow Simulation, ISH Journal Of Hydraulic Engineering, pp: 17(1):71-87.
  55. Sharief SVM, Eldho TI, Rastgoi AK, (2008). Optimal Pumping Policy for Aquifer Decontamination by Pump and Treat Method, ISH journal of Civil Engineering, pp: 14(2):1-17.
  56. Alaviani F, Sedghi H, Asghari Moghaddam A, Babazadeh H, (2018). Adopting GMS–PSO Model to Reduce Groundwater Withdrawal by Integrated Water Resources Management. Environmental Research, pp: 17:619–629.

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics