Comparative analysis of formulations for conservative transport in porous media through sensitivity‐based parameter calibration

[1] We apply a general strategy based on Global Sensitivity Analysis (GSA) and model discrimination criteria to (a) calibrate the parameters embedded in competing models employed to interpret laboratory-scale tracer experiments, (b) rank these models, and (c) estimate the relative degree of likelihood of each model through a posterior probability weight. We consider a conservative transport experiment in a uniform porous medium. We apply GSA to three transport models, based on: the classical advection-dispersion equation (ADE), a dual-porosity (DP) formulation with mass transfer between mobile and immobile regions, and the Continuous Time Random Walk (CTRW) approach. GSA is performed through Polynomial Chaos Expansion of the governing equations, treating key model parameters as independent random variables. We show how this approach allows identification of (a) the relative importance of model-dependent parameters, and (b) the space-time locations, where the models are most sensitive to these parameters. GSA is then employed to assist parameter estimates within a Maximum Likelihood framework. Finally, formal model identification criteria are employed to (a) rank the alternative models, and (b) associate each model with a posterior probability weight for the specific case study. The GSA-based calibration of each model returns an acceptable approximation (remarkably accurate in the case of the CTRW model) of all available concentration data, with calibration being performed using minimum sets of observations corresponding to the most sensitive (space-time) locations.

[1]  D. M. Ely,et al.  A method for evaluating the importance of system state observations to model predictions, with application to the Death Valley regional groundwater flow system , 2004 .

[2]  S. P. Neuman,et al.  Bayesian analysis of data-worth considering model and parameter uncertainties , 2012 .

[3]  I. Sobol,et al.  Sensitivity Measures, ANOVA-like Techniques and the Use of Bootstrap , 1997 .

[4]  Dongxiao Zhang,et al.  A multiscale probabilistic collocation method for subsurface flow in heterogeneous media , 2010 .

[5]  M. C. Hill,et al.  Model Calibration and Issues Related to Validation, Sensitivity Analysis, Post-audit, Uncertainty Evaluation and Assessment of Prediction Data Needs , 2007 .

[6]  Mary C Hill,et al.  Numerical methods for improving sensitivity analysis and parameter estimation of virus transport simulated using sorptive-reactive processes. , 2005, Journal of contaminant hydrology.

[7]  J. Diard,et al.  Numerical inversion of Laplace transforms.: A useful tool for evaluation of chemical diffusion coefficients in ion-insertion electrodes investigated by PITT , 2007 .

[8]  Dongbin Xiu,et al.  The Wiener-Askey Polynomial Chaos for Stochastic Differential Equations , 2002, SIAM J. Sci. Comput..

[9]  Bruno Sudret,et al.  Global sensitivity analysis using polynomial chaos expansions , 2008, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf..

[10]  S. P. Neuman,et al.  Estimation of Aquifer Parameters Under Transient and Steady State Conditions: 1. Maximum Likelihood Method Incorporating Prior Information , 1986 .

[11]  S. P. Neuman,et al.  Role of model selection criteria in geostatistical inverse estimation of statistical data‐ and model‐parameters , 2011 .

[12]  M. Riva,et al.  Estimation of Single‐Metal and Competitive Sorption Isotherms through Maximum Likelihood and Model Quality Criteria , 2012 .

[13]  Clifford M. Hurvich,et al.  Regression and time series model selection in small samples , 1989 .

[14]  Vittorio Di Federico,et al.  Analysis of a benchmark solution for non-Newtonian radial displacement in porous media , 2013 .

[15]  I. Sobola,et al.  Global sensitivity indices for nonlinear mathematical models and their Monte Carlo estimates , 2001 .

[16]  S. P. Neuman,et al.  Maximum likelihood Bayesian averaging of uncertain model predictions , 2003 .

[17]  C. Harvey,et al.  Reactive transport in porous media: a comparison of model prediction with laboratory visualization. , 2002, Environmental science & technology.

[18]  Brian Berkowitz,et al.  Exploring the nature of non-Fickian transport in laboratory experiments , 2009 .

[19]  N. Wiener.  The Homogeneous Chaos , 1938 .

[20]  S. P. Neuman,et al.  Inverse stochastic moment analysis of steady state flow in randomly heterogeneous media , 2006 .

[21]  Mary C Hill,et al.  Parameter and observation importance in modelling virus transport in saturated porous media-investigations in a homogenous system. , 2005, Journal of contaminant hydrology.

[22]  H. Akaike.  A new look at the statistical model identification , 1974 .

[23]  Rachida Bouhlila,et al.  Reactive Transport Parameter Estimation and Global Sensitivity Analysis Using Sparse Polynomial Chaos Expansion , 2012, Water, Air, & Soil Pollution.

[24]  Brian Berkowitz,et al.  Time behavior of solute transport in heterogeneous media: transition from anomalous to normal transport , 2003 .

[25]  Enrico Zio,et al.  Polynomial chaos expansion for global sensitivity analysis applied to a model of radionuclide migration in a randomly heterogeneous aquifer , 2013, Stochastic Environmental Research and Risk Assessment.

[26]  Rangasami L. Kashyap,et al.  Optimal Choice of AR and MA Parts in Autoregressive Moving Average Models , 1982, IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence.

[27]  A. Saltelli,et al.  Sensitivity Anaysis as an Ingredient of Modeling , 2000 .

[28]  Haibin Chang,et al.  A comparative study of numerical approaches to risk assessment of contaminant transport , 2010 .

[29]  Mary C. Hill,et al.  Evaluating model structure adequacy: The case of the Maggia Valley groundwater system, southern Switzerland , 2013 .

[30]  B. Iooss,et al.  Global sensitivity analysis for a numerical model of radionuclide migration from the RRC “Kurchatov Institute” radwaste disposal site , 2008 .

[31]  R. Ghanem,et al.  Stochastic Finite Elements: A Spectral Approach , 1990 .

[32]  S. P. Neuman,et al.  On model selection criteria in multimodel analysis , 2007 .

[33]  Mort Webster,et al.  Application of the probabilistic collocation method for an uncertainty analysis of a simple ocean model , 1996 .

[34]  Ming Ye,et al.  Maximum likelihood Bayesian averaging of spatial variability models in unsaturated fractured tuff , 2003 .

[35]  Ahmed E. Hassan,et al.  Monte Carlo study of conservative transport in heterogeneous dual-porosity media , 2003 .

[36]  Roger G. Ghanem,et al.  Physical Systems with Random Uncertainties: Chaos Representations with Arbitrary Probability Measure , 2005, SIAM J. Sci. Comput..

[37]  Brian Berkowitz,et al.  Computing “Anomalous” Contaminant Transport in Porous Media: The CTRW MATLAB Toolbox , 2005, Ground water.

[38]  Alberto Guadagnini,et al.  Use of global sensitivity analysis and polynomial chaos expansion for interpretation of nonreactive transport experiments in laboratory‐scale porous media , 2011 .

[39]  C. Zheng,et al.  Relative importance of dispersion and rate‐limited mass transfer in highly heterogeneous porous media: Analysis of a new tracer test at the Macrodispersion Experiment (MADE) site , 2010 .

[40]  Sergey Oladyshkin,et al.  Global sensitivity analysis: a flexible and efficient framework with an example from stochastic hydrogeology , 2012 .

[41]  Ilya M. Sobol,et al.  Sensitivity Estimates for Nonlinear Mathematical Models , 1993 .

[42]  W. T. Martin,et al.  The Orthogonal Development of Non-Linear Functionals in Series of Fourier-Hermite Functionals , 1947 .

[43]  C. Tiedeman,et al.  Methods for using groundwater model predictions to guide hydrogeologic data collection, with application to the Death Valley regional groundwater flow system , 2003 .

[44]  M. Dentz,et al.  Modeling non‐Fickian transport in geological formations as a continuous time random walk , 2006 .

[45]  Stefano Tarantola,et al.  Sensitivity Analysis as an Ingredient of Modeling , 2000 .