A comparative study of artificial neural networks and multivariate regression for predicting groundwater depths in the Arak aquifer

• Autorzy: Hanifian Soadat , Khaleghi Mohammad Reza , Najarchi Mohsen , Jafarnia Reza , Varvani Javad

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.1007/s11600-023-01050-3

• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

In recent years, the groundwater resources of Arak plain have been under severe stress, so in some areas, due to the drying up of wells, the depth of wells has increased to access water. In some areas, the groundwater depth is high, which will lead to the salinization of those lands in the future. Regional modeling was used to organize and measure the response of the groundwater resources of Arak plain against the implementation of different management and implementation scenarios. This study aims to investigate the effective factors in the groundwater depth to provide a regional model with multiple linear regression (MLR) methods for Arak plain aquifer. For this purpose, the average groundwater potential maps (GPMs) in the Arak plain, as a dependent variable, and the transmissivity of the aquifer formations, groundwater exploitation values, altitude, average precipitation of the region, the amount of evaporation, and the distance from water resources are considered independent variables and regression analysis is done in SPSS software media. It was done to present a linear model. In the next stage, the presented model was evaluated by applying it to places where its statistics and information were not used to present the model, and finally, by applying this model in the GIS environment, the GPMs for the region were created. The study was prepared. Also, an artificial neural network (ANN) was used to simulate the depth of underground water. The performance of the ANN was measured through parameters such as root-mean-square error (RMSE) and correlation coefficient between real and desired outputs (R). The results of both methods indicate that factors such as the transmissivity of aquifer formations, GPMs drawdown, topography (the height of the well site on the level of the watershed), the groundwater exploitation values at the maximum operating radius of the well, and the distance from water resources are the main factors of GPMs drawdown. But the effectiveness of ANN in estimating GPMs drawdown is higher than the MLR method. The implemented methodology could be generalized to other watersheds with water scarcity problems for groundwater management.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

aquifer formation; multiple linear regression; artificial neural network; GPMs drawdown

PL

formacja wodonośna; wielokrotna regresja liniowa; sztuczna sieć neuronowa

• Wydawca: Instytut Geofizyki PAN ; Springer
• Czasopismo: Acta Geophysica
• Rocznik: 2024
• Tom: Vol. 72, no. 1
• Strony: 419--432
• Opis fizyczny: Bibliogr. 53 poz.

Twórcy

autor

Hanifian Soadat

• Department of Water Engineering, Arak Branch, Islamic Azad University, Arak, Iran

autor

Khaleghi Mohammad Reza

• Department of Range and Watershed Management, Torbat-e-Jam Branch, Islamic Azad University, Torbat-e-Jam, Iran

• https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3611-3755

autor

Najarchi Mohsen

• Department of Water Engineering, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Arak Branch, Islamic Azad University, Arak, Iran

autor

Jafarnia Reza

• Department of Water Engineering, Arak Branch, Islamic Azad University, Arak, Iran

autor

Varvani Javad

• Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Sciences, Arak Branch, Islamic Azad University, Arak, Iran

Bibliografia

• 1. Agarwal R, Garg PK (2016) Remote sensing and GIS-based groundwater potential and recharge zones mapping using multi-criteria decision analysis making technique. Water Resour Manage 30:243-260
• 2. Akbari M, Jarge MR, Madani SH (2009) Assessment of decreasing of groundwater table using Geographic Information System (GIS). (Case study: Mashhad Plain Aquifer)
• 3. Alipour Z (2012) Evaluation of adaptive fuzzy-neural inference system and neural network in groundwater level prediction (North Mahyar Plain). Msc Thesis University of shahid chamran, Ahvaz, Iran, p 177
• 4. Arabameri A, Cerda A, Tiefenbacher JP (2019) Spatial pattern analysis and prediction of gully erosion using novel hybrid model of entropy-weight of evidence. Water 11(6):1129. https://doi.org/10. 3390/w11061129
• 5. Azari A, Zeynoddin M, Ebtehaj I, Sattar AMA, Gharabaghi B, Bonak-dari H (2021) Integrated preprocessing techniques with linear stochastic approaches in groundwater level forecasting. Acta Geophys 69:1395-1411. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11600-021-00617-2
• 6. Brunner P, Kinzelbach V (2005) Groundwater Modeling in a remote Chinese basin-how can models be improved in areas where data are scarce? Eur Geosci Union 2005:2p
• 7. Chelsea Q, Wan Y (2013) Time series modeling and prediction of salinity in the Caloosahatchee river estuary. Water Resour Res 49(9):5804-5816
• 8. Cho KH, Sthiannopkao S, Pachepsky YA, Kim KW (2011) Prediction of contamination potential of groundwater arsenic in Cambodia, Laos, and Thailand using artificial neural network. Water Res 45(17):5535-5544. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2011.08.010
• 9. Chowdhury A (2016) Assessment of spatial groundwater level variations using geo-statistics and GIS in Haringhata block, Nadia district, West Bengal. Int J Res Eng Technol 5(5):276-280
• 10. Coppola E, Szidarovszky F, Poulton M, Charles E (2003) Artificial neural network approach for predicting transient water depth in a multilayered groundwater system under variable state, pumping, and climate conditions. J Hydrol Eng 6:348-360
• 11. Davoodi Moghaddam D, Rezaei M, Pourghasemi HR, Pourtaghie ZS, Pradhan B (2015) Groundwater spring potential mapping using
• 12. bivariate statistical model and GIS in the the Taleghan Watershed Iran. Arabian J Geosci 8(2):913-929
• 13. Doll P, Schmied HM, Schuh C, Portmann FT, Eicker N (2014) Globalscale assessment of groundwater depletion and related groundwater abstractions: combining hydrological modeling with information from well observations and GRACE satellites. Water Resour Res 50(7):5698-5720. https://doi.org/10.1002/2014WR015595
• 14. Gandhi FR, Patel JN (2022) Groundwater potentiality deciphering and sensitivity study using remote sensing technique and fuzzy approach. Acta Geophys 70:265-282. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11600-021-00711-5
• 15. Ghadimi F (2015) Prediction of heavy metals contamination in the groundwater of Arak region using artificial neural network and multiple linear regression. J Tethys 3(3):203-215
• 16. Ghadimi F, Ghomi M (2013) Geochemical evaluation of drinking water in Arak City, Iran. Iran J Earth Sci 5(2):54-65. https://journ als.iau.ir/article_522868.html
• 17. Ghadimi F, Ghomi M, Azimi R (2016) Sources of nitrate and bromide contaminants of groundwater in alluvial aquifer of Arak. Iran J Tethys 4(2):100-115
• 18. Gholami V, Booij MJ, Nikzad Tehrani E, Hadian MA (2018) Spatial soil erosion estimation using an artificial neural network (ANN) and field plot data. Catena 163:210-218. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. catena.2017.12.027
• 19. Golkarian A, Rahmati O (2018) Use of a maximum entropy model to identify the key factors that influence groundwater availability on the Gonabad Plain. Iran Environ Earth Sci 77:369
• 20. Gualbert HP, Essink O (2001) Improving fresh groundwater supplyproblems and solutions center of hydrology (ICHU), institute of earth science. Ocean Coast Manag 44(5-6):429-449
• 21. Haghizade A, Moghaddam D, Pourghasemi H (2017) GIS-based bivariate statistical techniques for groundwater potential analysis. J Earth Syst Sci 126:109
• 22. Hamed Y, Elkiki M, Al Gahtani OS (2015) Prediction of future groundwater level using artificial neural network Southern Riyadh KSA (case study). Eighteenth International Water Technology Conference IWTC18 5(2): 149-169
• 23. Ioannis N, Daliakopoulos P, Coulibaly I, Tsanis K (2005) GPMS forecasting using artificial neural networks. J Hydrol 309:229-240
• 24. Kamasi M, Sharghi S, Nourani V (2016) Identification of factors affecting groundwater level reduction using wavelet-entropy criterion (Case Study: Silakhor Plain Aquifer). Hydrogeomorph 9 (4):63-86
• 25. Karthikeyan L, Kumar ND, Graillot D, Gaur S (2013) Prediction of ground water depth in the uplands of a tropical coastal riparian wetland using artificial neural networks. Water Resour Manage 27:871-883
• 26. Keykhosravi SS, Nejadkoorki F, Amintoosi M (2019) Estimation of artificial neural networks accuracy in anticipation of the dust of the Sabzevar cement factory. J Res Environ Health 5(1):43-52
• 27. Khazaz L, Oulidi HJ, El Moutaki S, Ghafiri A (2015) Comparing and evaluating probabilistic and deterministic spatial interpolation methods for groundwater level of Haouz in Morocco. Geog Inf Syst 7:631-642
• 28. Krishna B, Satyajit Rao YR, Vijaya T (2008) Modeling GPMSs in an urban coastal aquifer using artificial neural networks. Hydrol Processes 22:1180-1188
• 29. Lallahem S, Mania J, Hani A, Najjar Y (2005) On the use of neural networks to evaluate GPMSs in fractured media. J Hydrol 307(1-4):92-111
• 30. Lee S, Song KY, Kim Y, Park I (2012) Regional groundwater productivity potential mapping using a geographic information system (GIS) based artificial neural network model. Hydrogeol J 20:1511-1527
• 31. Lee S, Hyun Y, Lee M (2019) Groundwater potential mapping using data mining models of big data analysis in Goyang-si. South Korea Sustain 11:1678
• 32. Mohammadi Ghaleni M, Ebrahimi K, Araghinejad S (2011) Groundwater quantity and quality evaluation: a case study for Saveh and Arak aquifers. Water Soil Sci 21(2):93-108
• 33. Nadiri AA, Sadeghfam S, Gharekhani M, Khatibi R, Akbari E (2018) Introducing the risk aggregation problem to aquifers exposed to impacts of anthropogenic and geogenic origins on a modular basis using ‘risk cells.’ J Environ Manage 217:654-667. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.04.011
• 34. Naghibi SA, Ahmadi K, Daneshi A (2017a) Application of support vector machine, random forest, and genetic algorithm optimized random forest models in groundwater potential mapping. Water Resour Manage 31:2761-2775. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11269-017-1660-3
• 35. Naghibi SA, Moghaddam D, Kalantari B, Pradhan B, Kisi O (2017b) A comparative assessment of GIS-based data mining models and a novel ensemble model in groundwater well potential mapping. J Hydrol 548:471-483
• 36. Nofal ER, Amer MA, El-Didy SM, Fekry AM (2015) Delineation and modeling of seawater intrusion into the Nile Delta Aquifer: a new perspective. Water Sci 29(2):156-166
• 37. Nordqvist R, Gustafsson E, Andersson P, Thur P, AB G (2008) Groundwater flow and hydraulic gradients in fractures and fracture zones at Forsmark and Oskarshamn. SKB Rapport, pp 1-69. https:// www.skb.com/publication/1784919
• 38. Nourani V, Asgharimoghaddam AA, Nadiri AO, Singh VP (2008) Forecasting spatiotemporal water depth of Tabriz aquifer. Trends Appl Sci Res 3(4):319-329
• 39. Priyanka BN, Mahesha A (2015) Parametric studies on saltwater intrusion into coastal aquifers for anticipate sea level rise. Aquat Pro-cedia 4:103-108
• 40. Rahmati O, Pourghasemi HR, Melesse AM (2016) Application of GIS-based data driven random forest and maximum entropy models for groundwater potential mapping: a case study at Mehran region. Iran Catena 137:360-372. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2015. 10.010
• 41. Rahmati O, Naghibi SA, Shahabi H, Bui DT, Pradhan B, Azareh A et al (2018) Groundwater spring potential modeling: Comprising the capability and robustness of three different modeling approaches. J Hydrol 565:248-261
• 42. Rakhshandehroo G, Akbari H, Afshari Igder M, Ostadzadeh E (2017) Long-term groundwater level forecasting in shallow and deep
• 43. wells using wavelet neural networks trained by an improved harmony search algorithm. J Hydrol Eng 23(2):04017058
• 44. Roshni T, Jha MK, Deo RC, Vandana A (2019) Development and evaluation of hybrid artificial neural network architectures for modeling spatio-temporal groundwater fluctuations in a complex aquifer system. Water Resour Manage. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11269-019-02253-4
• 45. Sahour H, Gholami V, Vazifedan M (2020) A comparative analysis of statistical and machine learning techniques for mapping the spatial distribution of groundwater salinity in a coastal aquifer. J Hydrol 591:125321. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2020.125321
• 46. Solomatine DP, Ostfeld A (2008) Data-driven modelling: some past experiences and new approaches. J Hydroinf 10(1):3-22
• 47. Sreekanth PD, Geethanjali N, Sreedevi PD, Ahmed S, Ravi Kumar N, Kamala Jayanthi PD (2009) Forecasting groundwater level using artificial neural networks. Curr Sci 96(7):933-939
• 48. Thapa R, Gupta S, Guin S, Kaur H (2017) Assessment of groundwater potential zones using multi-influencing factor (MIF) and GIS: a case study from Birbhum district, West Bengal. Appl Water Sci 7:4117-4131
• 49. Vaheddoost B, Aksoy H (2018) Interaction of groundwater with Lake Urmia in Iran. Hydrol Processes 32(21):3283-3295
• 50. Wei HF, Ledoux E, de Marsily G (1990) Regional modelling of groundwater flow and salt and environmental tracer transport in deep aquifers in the Paris basin. J Hydrol (amsterdam) 120:341-358
• 51. Wu W, Dandy GC, Maier HR (2014) Protocol for developing ANN models and their application to the assessment of the quality of the ANN model development process in drinking water quality modeling. Environ Modell Software 54:108-127. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.envsoft.2013.12.016
• 52. Zarafshan P, Etezadi H, Javadi S, Roozbahani A, Hashemy SM, Payam Zarafshan P (2022) Comparison of machine learning models for predicting groundwater level, case study: Najafabad region. Acta Geophys. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11600-022-00948-8
• 53. Zhang M (2001) Information-statistics evaluation on the effects of ground water buried depth to upper soil and groundwater salinity. China postdoctoral preceding science press, Beijing, China, pp 221-224