Groundwater Model Sensitivity and Uncertainty Analyses: Methods, Results, and Recommendations

Presented on Monday, May 5, 2014
Mary C. Hill, U.S. Geological Survey, Boulder, CO

Sensitivity and uncertainty analysis provide insights into and reveal consequences of the often complex set of processes needed to simulate groundwater and other environmental systems. Sensitivity analysis identifies observations important to parameters, parameters important to predictions, and observations important to predictions. Uncertainty analysis quantifies the precision with which predictions are calculated given the observations and other knowledge available for model development, including model construction. Model construction uncertainties can be evaluated using multiple alternative models that use alternative boundary conditions, numerical formulations, computer codes, and so on. Alternative models and more complicated models can be explored when sensitivity and uncertainty analyses are conducted using computationally frugal methods that require fewer model runs amenable to high performance computing. In this talk, recent investigations of computationally frugal methods are reviewed, including comparison with the computationally demanding Sobol and cross-validation methods. The new hybrid DELSA (Distributed Evaluation of Local Sensitivity Analysis) method is also discussed. Examples use groundwater and surface water models (MODFLOW, MODPATH-OBS, FUSE, and TOPKAPI). Results illustrate the insights that can be obtained from sensitivity and uncertainty analyses in general, and what is compromised and achieved using computationally frugal and demanding methods. Some examples include: (1) Differences between alternate groundwater models were more important than differences between local and Sobol measures of prediction uncertainty, suggesting that computational effort be focused on exploring alternative models. (2) A variance-based local method is used in a new way to display the information provided by observations for parameters from defined observation types. The local methods were found to be useful except for difficulties with FUSE models revealed using DELSA. Recommended methods and diagnostics for choosing between methods are discussed.


Mary C. Hill
U.S. Geological Survey, Boulder, CO
Mary Hill is a research scientist with the U.S. Geological Survey in Boulder, Colorado, and is an adjunct professor at the Colorado School of Mines and the University of Colorado at Boulder. She has conducted and consulted on numerous groundwater investigations involving numerical modeling nationally and internationally over the last 20 years. Hill has an AB in geology from Hope College in Holland, Michigan and MSE and Ph.D. degrees in Civil Engineering from Princeton University.

NGWA may only post those brown bag sessions, Webinars, event sessions, and like for which we have obtained copyright permission from the presenter. Furthermore, by accessing or downloading any of these items, you agree they are for your own personal use and may not be disseminated by any means to others via any medium. Click here to read NGWA's proprietary legend and disclaimers before proceeding.