| Wednesday, April 2, 2008: 8:00 a.m.-10:20 a.m. | |||
| Mississippi (Memphis Cook Convention Center) | |||
| Evaluation of Multiple Conceptual Models and Modeling Scenarios I | |||
| There is a growing awareness among scientists, regulators, decision-makers, and stakeholders of the need to evaluate alternative conceptual models and modeling scenarios in order to improve model prediction. Natural systems are complex, thus extensive data are needed for their characterization. However, data acquisition is expensive; consequently we develop models using sparse, uncertain information. When all uncertainties in the system are considered, the number of alternative conceptual models is large. Chamberlin (1890) recommended use of “multiple working hypotheses” (alternative conceptual models) for rapid advancement in the understanding of applied and theoretical problems. Alternative conceptual models and modeling scenarios can be developed and evaluated in a number of ways based on analysts’ judgments, ancillary information, and model calibration results. This session invites colleagues to share novel ideas, innovative methods, and related practical developments for defining, evaluating, and improving alternative conceptual models and modeling scenarios. Both oral and poster presentations will be considered. | |||
| Moderators: | Yu-Feng Lin, Illinois State Water Survey and University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Eileen P. Poeter, Ph.D., PE, IGWMC Colorado School of Mines Ming Ye, Ph.D., Florida State University | ||
| 8:00 a.m. | Isn't the Calibration of an Interpretive Ground Water Model the Testing of Multiple Conceptual Models? William W. Woessner, University of Montana | ||
| 8:20 a.m. | If Thomas Bayes had met Thomas Chamberlin Michael Fienen, Ph., D. and Randall Hunt, Ph., D., P., H., United States Geological Survey | ||
| 8:40 a.m. | An Example Multi-Model Analysis: Calibration and Ranking Scott James, Ph.D. and Thomas S. Lowry, Sandia National Laboratories | ||
| 9:00 a.m. | A Case Study of Capture Zone Delineation in A Multi-Aquifer System Based on Inverse Modeling of Pump Test Data Ioannis Benekos, Ph.D., Min-Ying Jacob Chu, Ph.D. and Christopher M. Stubbs, Ph.D., PE, ENVIRON International Corporation | ||
| 9:20 a.m. | Coupling of Probabilistic Cellular Automata and a Stochastic Algorithm for Reactive Transport Simulation in Porous Media Jegathambal Palanichamy1, Torsten Becker1, Jürgen Köngeter1 and Mohan Sankaralingam2, (1)RWTH Aachen, (2)IITM, Chennai | ||
| 9:40 a.m. | Multimodeling and concurrent use of models for flow and transport in the vadose zone Yakov Pachepsky1, Andrey K. Guber2, Martinus T. Van Genuchten1, Jiri Simunek2, Timothy J. Gish1, Thomas Nicholson3 and Ralph E. Cady3, (1)USDA-ARS, (2)University of California, Riverside, (3)US Nuclear Regulatory Commission | ||
| 10:00 a.m. | Using Simple Groundwater Modeling as a Tool for Conceptual Site Model Development and Testing: An Example from the Hanford Site, Washington Craig C. Arola, Vista Engineering Technologies, LLC, Matthew J. Tonkin, S.S. Papadopulos & Associates, Inc. and David S. Miller, Fluor Government Group | ||