A geostatistics‐informed hierarchical sensitivity analysis method for complex groundwater flow and transport modeling

Sensitivity analysis is an important tool for development and improvement of mathematical models, especially for complex systems with a high dimension of spatially correlated parameters. Variance-based global sensitivity analysis has gained popularity because it can quantify the relative contribution of uncertainty from different sources. However, its computational cost increases dramatically with the complexity of the considered model and the dimension of model parameters. In this study we developed a new sensitivity analysis method that integrates the concept of variance-based method with a hierarchical uncertainty quantification framework. Different uncertain inputs are grouped and organized into a multi-layer framework based on their characteristics and dependency relationships to reduce the dimensionality of the sensitivity analysis. A set of new sensitivity indices are defined for the grouped inputs using the variance decomposition method. Using this methodology, we identified the most important uncertainty source for a dynamic groundwater flow and solute transport model at the Department of Energy (DOE) Hanford site. The results indicate that boundary conditions and permeability field contribute the most uncertainty to the simulated head field and tracer plume, respectively. The relative contribution from each source varied spatially and temporally. By using a geostatistical approach to reduce the number of realizations needed for the sensitivity analysis, the computational cost of implementing the developed method was reduced to a practically manageable level. The developed sensitivity analysis method is generally applicable to a wide range of hydrologic and environmental problems that deal with high-dimensional spatially-distributed input variables.

[1]  X. Zeng,et al.  Evaluating marginal likelihood with thermodynamic integration method and comparison with several other numerical methods , 2016 .

[2]  Ming Ye,et al.  Variance-based global sensitivity analysis for multiple scenarios and models with implementation using sparse grid collocation , 2015 .

[3]  Broder J. Merkel,et al.  Sensitivity analysis of transport modeling in a fractured gneiss aquifer , 2015 .

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

[5]  K. Beven.  Towards a coherent philosophy for modelling the environment , 2002, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences.

[6]  Y. Rubin,et al.  Bayesian approach for three-dimensional aquifer characterization at the Hanford 300 Area , 2010 .

[7]  Saman Razavi,et al.  What do we mean by sensitivity analysis? The need for comprehensive characterization of “global” sensitivity in Earth and Environmental systems models , 2015 .

[8]  Jun Xia,et al.  An efficient global sensitivity analysis approach for distributed hydrological model , 2012, Journal of Geographical Sciences.

[9]  Patrick M. Reed,et al.  Time‐varying sensitivity analysis clarifies the effects of watershed model formulation on model behavior , 2013 .

[10]  S. Grunwald,et al.  A global sensitivity analysis tool for the parameters of multivariable catchment models , 2006 .

[11]  David Draper,et al.  Assessment and Propagation of Model Uncertainty , 2011 .

[12]  Yakov A. Pachepsky,et al.  Sensitivity analysis of unsaturated flow and contaminant transport with correlated parameters , 2011, Journal of Hydrology.

[13]  H. Gupta,et al.  A new framework for comprehensive, robust, and efficient global sensitivity analysis: 1. Theory , 2016 .

[14]  G. Fu,et al.  Sobol′’s sensitivity analysis for a distributed hydrological model of Yichun River Basin, China , 2013 .

[15]  Jeffrey D. Cawlfield,et al.  Probabilistic sensitivity analysis for one-dimensional contaminant transport in the vadose zone , 1996 .

[16]  Andrea Saltelli,et al.  An effective screening design for sensitivity analysis of large models , 2007, Environ. Model. Softw..

[17]  Stefano Tarantola,et al.  Presenting Results from Model Based Studies to Decision-Makers: Can Sensitivity Analysis be a Defogging Agent? , 1998 .

[18]  S. P. Neuman,et al.  Combined Estimation of Hydrogeologic Conceptual Model and Parameter Uncertainty , 2004 .

[19]  S. P. Neuman,et al.  Sensitivity analysis and assessment of prior model probabilities in MLBMA with application to unsaturated fractured tuff , 2005 .

[20]  Paul D. Thorne,et al.  Borehole Completion and Conceptual Hydrogeologic Model for the IFRC Well Field, 300 Area, Hanford Site , 2009 .

[21]  John Bargar,et al.  Persistence of uranium groundwater plumes: contrasting mechanisms at two DOE sites in the groundwater-river interaction zone. , 2013, Journal of contaminant hydrology.

[22]  Zhenxue Dai,et al.  Pre-site characterization risk analysis for commercial-scale carbon sequestration. , 2014, Environmental science & technology.

[23]  Yuqiong Liu,et al.  Uncertainty in hydrologic modeling: Toward an integrated data assimilation framework , 2007 .

[24]  Ming Ye,et al.  Assessment of parametric uncertainty for groundwater reactive transport modeling , 2014 .

[25]  Paola Annoni,et al.  Variance based sensitivity analysis of model output. Design and estimator for the total sensitivity index , 2010, Comput. Phys. Commun..

[26]  R. Srinivasan,et al.  A global sensitivity analysis tool for the parameters of multi-variable catchment models , 2006 .

[27]  Jing Yang,et al.  Convergence and uncertainty analyses in Monte-Carlo based sensitivity analysis , 2011, Environ. Model. Softw..

[28]  Stefan Finsterle,et al.  Making sense of global sensitivity analyses , 2014, Comput. Geosci..

[29]  A. Valocchi,et al.  Evaluating the sensitivity of a subsurface multicomponent reactive transport model with respect to transport and reaction parameters. , 2001, Journal of contaminant hydrology.

[30]  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.

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

[32]  D. Shahsavani,et al.  Variance-based sensitivity analysis of model outputs using surrogate models , 2011, Environ. Model. Softw..

[33]  H. Gupta,et al.  A new framework for comprehensive, robust, and efficient global sensitivity analysis: 2. Application , 2016 .

[34]  Keith Beven,et al.  A framework for uncertainty analysis , 2014 .

[35]  Keith Beven,et al.  A manifesto for the equifinality thesis , 2006 .

[36]  Glenn E. Hammond,et al.  Field‐scale model for the natural attenuation of uranium at the Hanford 300 Area using high‐performance computing , 2010 .

[37]  Adrian E. Raftery,et al.  Bayesian model averaging: a tutorial (with comments by M. Clyde, David Draper and E. I. George, and a rejoinder by the authors , 1999 .

[38]  Ming Ye,et al.  Global sensitivity analysis in hydrological modeling: Review of concepts, methods, theoretical framework, and applications , 2015 .

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

[40]  J. Bredehoeft.  The conceptualization model problem—surprise , 2005 .

[41]  Carolina Massmann,et al.  Analysis of the behavior of a rainfall-runoff model using three global sensitivity analysis methods evaluated at different temporal scales , 2012 .

[42]  A. Saltelli,et al.  A quantitative model-independent method for global sensitivity analysis of model output , 1999 .

[43]  John D Bredehoeft.  From models to performance assessment: the conceptualization problem. , 2003, Ground water.

[44]  Saltelli Andrea,et al.  Sensitivity Analysis for Nonlinear Mathematical Models. Numerical ExperienceSensitivity Analysis for Nonlinear Mathematical Models. Numerical Experience , 1995 .

[45]  Yoram Rubin,et al.  Three‐dimensional Bayesian geostatistical aquifer characterization at the Hanford 300 Area using tracer test data , 2012 .

[46]  Glenn E. Hammond,et al.  Application of ensemble‐based data assimilation techniques for aquifer characterization using tracer data at Hanford 300 area , 2013 .

[47]  Dirk Mallants,et al.  Sensitivity Analysis of a Combined Groundwater Flow and Solute Transport Model Using Local-Grid Refinement: A Case Study , 2012, Mathematical Geosciences.

[48]  Javier Samper,et al.  Inverse problem of multicomponent reactive chemical transport in porous media: Formulation and applications , 2004 .

[49]  Henning Prommer,et al.  Comparison of parameter sensitivities between a laboratory and field‐scale model of uranium transport in a dual domain, distributed rate reactive system , 2010 .

[50]  I. Sobol,et al.  About the use of rank transformation in sensitivity analysis of model output , 1995 .

[51]  Glenn E. Hammond,et al.  River stage influences on uranium transport in a hydrologically dynamic groundwater‐surface water transition zone , 2016 .

[52]  Srikanta Mishra,et al.  Global Sensitivity Analysis Techniques for Probabilistic Ground Water Modeling , 2009, Ground water.

[53]  Ming Ye,et al.  Expert elicitation of recharge model probabilities for the Death Valley regional flow system , 2008 .

[54]  Ming Ye,et al.  A Model‐Averaging Method for Assessing Groundwater Conceptual Model Uncertainty , 2010, Ground water.

[55]  James A. Davis,et al.  Assessing conceptual models for subsurface reactive transport of inorganic contaminants , 2004 .

[56]  Patrick M. Reed,et al.  Multiobjective sensitivity analysis to understand the information content in streamflow observations for distributed watershed modeling , 2009 .

[57]  Adrian E. Raftery,et al.  Bayesian Model Averaging: A Tutorial , 2016 .

[58]  W. Nowak,et al.  Model selection on solid ground: Rigorous comparison of nine ways to evaluate Bayesian model evidence , 2014, Water resources research.

[59]  L. Shawn Matott,et al.  Evaluating uncertainty in integrated environmental models: A review of concepts and tools , 2009 .

[60]  Y. Rubin,et al.  A Bayesian approach for inverse modeling, data assimilation, and conditional simulation of spatial random fields , 2010 .

[61]  A. Saltelli,et al.  Scenario and Parametric Uncertainty in GESAMAC. A Methodological Study in Nuclear Waste Disposal Risk Assessment. , 1999 .

[62]  Stefano Tarantola,et al.  Sensitivity analysis of spatial models , 2009, Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci..

[63]  Jens Christian Refsgaard,et al.  Review of strategies for handling geological uncertainty in groundwater flow and transport modeling , 2012 .

[64]  G E Hammond,et al.  Evaluating the performance of parallel subsurface simulators: An illustrative example with PFLOTRAN , 2014, Water resources research.

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

[66]  P. Reed,et al.  Characterization of watershed model behavior across a hydroclimatic gradient , 2008 .

[67]  L. Shawn Matott,et al.  Screening‐Level Sensitivity Analysis for the Design of Pump‐and‐Treat Systems , 2012 .

[68]  Daniel M. Tartakovsky,et al.  Assessment and management of risk in subsurface hydrology: A review and perspective , 2013 .

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

[70]  Willy Bauwens,et al.  Sobol' sensitivity analysis of a complex environmental model , 2011, Environ. Model. Softw..

[71]  Ming Ye,et al.  Comment on “Inverse groundwater modeling for hydraulic conductivity estimation using Bayesian model averaging and variance window” by Frank T.‐C. Tsai and Xiaobao Li , 2010 .

[72]  Luk Peeters,et al.  Application of a multimodel approach to account for conceptual model and scenario uncertainties in groundwater modelling , 2010 .

[73]  Max D. Morris,et al.  Factorial sampling plans for preliminary computational experiments , 1991 .