Abstract Background and Objective: Having information about qualitative and quantitative parameters distribution of groundwater supplies is one of most important parameters in integrated groundwater management. Thus, in this study it has been attempted to determine a pr
More
Abstract Background and Objective: Having information about qualitative and quantitative parameters distribution of groundwater supplies is one of most important parameters in integrated groundwater management. Thus, in this study it has been attempted to determine a proper model and input combination for estimation of quality parameters including electrical conductivity (EC), calcium (Ca) and sodium (Na) ions in aquifers of Guilans plain. Method: In this study, the data from 132 observation wells during 2001 to 2013 were used and artificial neural network (ANN) and support vector model (SVM) were applied. In the first approach, estimations were conducted according to five different combinations, including water level, distance from see, total precipitation of six months and coordinates of observation wells. In the second approach, estimations were conducted based on combination of the selected qualitative parameters of gamma test with combinations of the best input in the first part. Findings: Comparison of the results from the first part indicated that SVM model outperformed the ANN mode in the estimation of Ca, Na and EC parameters. Support vector machine error values for estimating Ca, Na and EC variables at the test period were 1.218 (meq/l), 0.867(meq/l), and 175.742 (µmos/cm), while for artificial neural network these values were 1.268 (meq/l), 0.933 (meq/l), and 186/448 (µmos/cm) respectively. The results from this part showed that adding the distance from see input improves the estimation of models in all cases. In the second part, using gamma test for measuring the nine quality parameters, the best combination of quality parameters was determined to estimate the three parameters: Ca, Na and EC. The results from the second part show that both ANN and SVM models have an excellent performance in the estimation of the three qualitative parameters. ANN model error values in estimating Ca, Na and EC variables in validation period were 0.662 (meq/l), 0.305(meq/l), and 47.346 (µmos/cm), while these values were 0.671 (meq/l), 0.356 (meq/l), and 55.412 (µmos/cm) for SVM model respectively. Obviously, the results from ANN model in this section were better than those from SVM model. Discussion and Conclusion:Results showed that both ANN and SVM models have a great ability in predicting qualitative parameters in the aquifers. Also, in less inputs, the results of SVM model are better than those of ANN model and in more inputs it is vice versa. Results of the second section showed that gamma test is fully practical and accurate in determining the effective input combinations.
Manuscript profile
