Accepted Manuscript

Title: Evaluation of Methods for Estimating Aquifer

Hydraulic Parameters

Author: S.M. Bateni M. Mortazavi-Naeini B. Ataie-Ashtiani

D.S. Jeng R. Khanbilvardi

PII: S1568-4946(14)00666-8
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1016/j.asoc.2014.12.022
Reference: ASOC 2693

To appear in: Applied Soft Computing

Received date: 16-8-2013

Revised date: 30-7-2014
Accepted date: 17-12-2014

Please cite this article as: S.M. Bateni, M. Mortazavi-Naeini, B. Ataie-

Ashtiani, D.S. Jeng, R. Khanbilvardi, Evaluation of Methods for Estimating
Aquifer Hydraulic Parameters, Applied Soft Computing Journal (2014),
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2014.12.022

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication.
As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript.
The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof
before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process
errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that
apply to the journal pertain.
 Graphical abstract

t
ip
cr
us
an
M
d
p te
ce

Comparison of time-drawdown plots from graphical, NLP, and ACO techniques for sample confined (datasets C3),
unconfined (datasets U4), and leaky (dataset L1) aquifers.
Ac

1
Page 1 of 33
Highlights
• We proposed an Ant Colony Optimization (ACO)to estimate the aquifer hydraulic porperties; 

• ACO is efficient, and reliable for estimating various aquifer hydraulic parameters from the 
time‐drawdown data; 

• ACO provides better estimation of aquifer properties than the graphical and NLP techniques.  

t
ip
cr
us
an
M
d
p te
ce
Ac

2
Page 2 of 33
 Evaluation of Methods for Estimating Aquifer Hydraulic Parameters

S. M. Bateni1, M. Mortazavi-Naeini2, B. Ataie-Ashtiani3, D. S. Jeng4, R. Khanbilvardi5

1
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of California Los Angeles, Los

t
Angeles, CA, USA

ip
2
Department of Civil, Surveying and Environmental Engineering, University of Newcastle, Callaghan,

cr
NSW, Australia
3
Department of Civil Engineering, Sharif University of Technology, Tehran, Iran

us
4
Griffith School of Engineering, Griffith University Gold Coast Campus, Queensland, QLD 4222,
Australia
5
NOAA-Cooperative Remote Sensing Science & Technology Center (NOAA-CREST), City

an
University of New York, NY, USA

Abstract: An accurate estimation of aquifer hydraulic parameters is required for groundwater

M
modeling and proper management of vital groundwater resources. In situ measurements of aquifer
hydraulic parameters are expensive and difficult. Traditionally, these parameters have been estimated
d

by graphical methods that are approximate and time-consuming. As a result, nonlinear programming
(NLP) techniques have been used extensively to estimate them. Despite the outperformance of NLP
te

approaches over graphical methods, they tend to converge to local minima and typically suffer from a
convergence problem. In this study, Genetic Algorithm (GA) and Ant Colony Optimization (ACO)
p

methods are used to identify hydraulic parameters (i.e., storage coefficient, hydraulic conductivity,
ce

transmissivity, specific yield, and leakage factor) of three types of aquifers namely, confined,
unconfined, and leaky from real time-drawdown pumping test data. The performance of GA and ACO
is also compared with that of graphical and NLP techniques. The results show that both GA and ACO
Ac

are efficient, robust, and reliable for estimating various aquifer hydraulic parameters from the time-
drawdown data and perform better than the graphical and NLP techniques. The outcomes also indicate
that the accuracy of GA and ACO is comparable. Comparing the running time of various utilized
methods illustrates that ACO converges to the optimal solution faster than other techniques, while the
graphical method has the highest running time.

Keywords: Aquifer Hydraulic Parameters, Ant Colony Optimization (ACO), Genetic Algorithm
(GA), Nonlinear Programming (NLP), Pumping Test.

3
Page 3 of 33
1. Introduction
In many parts of the world, groundwater has been used as a reliable source of water for numerous

purposes such as irrigation, and domestic and industrial uses. Therefore, it is necessary to

appropriately model the complex groundwater system in order to properly manage this vital resource.

t
To do so, an accurate specification of aquifer hydraulic parameters such as transmissivity (T),

ip
hydraulic conductivity (K), storage coefficient (S), leakage factor (B), and specific yield (Sy) is needed

cr
since these parameters are commonly required in groundwater/aquifer flow modeling [1-7]. These

parameters can be measured by laboratory experiments or in-situ tests; however, the former is

us
inaccurate, and the latter is expensive.

An alternative option for the estimation of the aquifer parameters is through inverse modeling. In

an
this procedure, some variables that can be obtained more accurately (e.g., hydraulic head) are

measured; then, the aquifer parameters are inversely estimated from the measured variables. Pumping
M
test is the most commonly used and standard technique for inverse modeling of groundwater

parameters. In this test, time-drawdown measurements are analyzed via the analytical solutions such
d

as Theis, corrected Theis, and Hantush models depending on the aquifer type in which the test is
te

performed [8].
p

Several approaches have been proposed to solve the above-mentioned inverse problem and
ce

obtain aquifer hydraulic parameters. The first group of approaches is graphical. The aquifer hydraulic

parameters estimated by the graphical technique are of questionable reliability since a perfect curve
Ac

matching is not anticipated and the match is typically approximate [1]. The traditional graphical

technique is time-consuming, burdensome, and subjective [8]. The second group of approaches

attempts to estimate aquifer parameters using nonlinear programming (NLP) techniques such as the

steepest descent method, conjugate gradient method, Gauss–Newton method, Marquardt algorithm,

etc. Although NLP methods often outperform the graphical approaches, they suffer from a number of

shortcomings. Aquifer models are typically non-convex and nonlinear, and for such models, classical

gradient-based optimization techniques may result in local optimum values rather than global ones.

4
Page 4 of 33
The gradient based techniques may cause instability and convergence problems due to the numerical

difficulties. Moreover, their convergence to a global optima highly depends on the selection of initial

search points. Furthermore, these techniques cannot find the local gradient for the problems with

discontinuous objective function [4, 9].

t
ip
To overcome the aforementioned shortcomings, the non-traditional methods such as

evolutionary algorithms can be applied as they can handle highly nonlinear, even non-smooth

cr
problems and converge to the global rather than local optimum. In this study, two well-known

us
evolutionary algorithms namely, Genetic Algorithm (GA) and Ant Colony Optimization (ACO) are

proposed to estimate the hydraulic parameters of three major types of aquifers (i.e., confined,

an
unconfined, and leaky). An objective function is formulated for the inverse estimation using the

observed hydraulic heads from pumping tests. Thereafter, GA and ACO are utilized to minimize the
M
objective function by tuning the aquifer hydraulic parameters. These techniques have several

advantages over gradient-based methods [10, 11]: (1) They do not require a continuous objective
d

function; (2) They often can find a near global optima and do not get trapped in a local-optimal
te

solution; (3) They provide a number of near global optima solutions and hence give users the ability to

assess the solutions and make a decision.

p

GA has been applied in a number of groundwater optimization problems. El Harrouni et al. [12]
ce

used GA to manage pumping from wells and to estimate hydraulic parameters in heterogeneous

aquifers. In a similar effort, Lingireddy [13] integrated GA and neural network to obtain aquifer
Ac

hydraulic parameters. Samuel and Jha [8] and Jha et al. [4] examined effectiveness of GA in

estimating aquifer parameters. They showed that GA is a viable and efficient technique that often

overcomes the subjectivity, high computational burden and ill-posedness of traditional optimization

methods. In a more recent attempt, Rajesh et al. [14] utilized GA, graphical, and sequential

unconstrained minimization approaches to retrieve unconfined aquifer hydraulic parameters. Their

results revealed that GA outperforms the other two methods.

5
Page 5 of 33
 ACO has been successfully used in water resources optimization problems such as minimizing

the capital costs associated with water distribution systems [15-18], design of irrigation networks [19],

optimal groundwater monitoring design [20], multi-purpose reservoir operation [21, 22], optimal

design of open channels [23], underground seepage flow [24], and saltwater intrusion in the coastal

t
aquifers [25]. To the best knowledge of the authors, the only study on the estimation of aquifer

ip
parameters with ACO was conducted by Li et al. [26], wherein the hydraulic conductivity and storage

cr
coefficient of a confined aquifer were estimated in a synthetic experimental framework. In comparison

us
to their study, the present study uses ACO to estimate the hydraulic parameters of three aquifer

systems (confined, unconfined and leaky) from real-world time-drawdown pumping test data.

an
Moreover, the results of ACO are compared with those of graphical and NLP techniques. Each

method is applied to 15 sets of real time-drawdown pumping test data (5 sets of data for each aquifer
M
type). These data sets are taken from [27-33].

This paper is organized as follows. In section 2, the analytical models of groundwater used in
d
this study are reviewed. The graphical, NLP, GA, and ACO methods are outlined in section 3. Section
te

4 presents the formulation of the objective function. Section 5 provides the results and discussions.

Finally, conclusions are reported in section 6.

p

2. Analytical Models for Analyzing Pumping Test Data

ce

Pumping test is a well-known tool to characterize a system of aquifers. The test is conducted by

pumping water from one well and observing the response of aquifer (drawdown) in observation wells.
Ac

The hydraulic-head drawdowns from the pumping test can be used for aquifer characterization and the

estimate of parameters such as transmissivity (T), storage coefficient (S), hydraulic conductivity (K),

leakage factor (B) and specific yield (Sy). Herein, the theoretical models for response of idealized

aquifers to pumping are presented.

2.1. Theis Model

The well-known Theis [34] solution describes radial flow to a fully penetrated pumping well in

a homogeneous, isotropic confined aquifer of infinite horizontal extent which is pumped at a constant

6
Page 6 of 33
rate Q. Theis solution that is considered as one of the fundamental breakthroughs in the development

of hydrologic modeling can be shown as follows,

Q
s( r, t ) = W (U ) (1)
4π T

t
ip
where s(r, t) is the drawdown at a radial distance r from the pumping well at time t since the beginning

of pumping, T is the transmissivity, S is the storage coefficient, U = r 2 S / 4Tt , and W(U) is the Theis

cr
well function, which is given by

us
∞ e− x
W (U ) = ∫ dx (2)
U x

an
In this study, the Theis well function W(U) is calculated via the Taylor series expansion for small

values of U ( 0 < U ≤ 1 ) and the Gauss-Laguerre quadrature for large values of U ( U > 1 ) [35].
M
Unconfined aquifers have a different response to the pumping test compared to confined

aquifers. Therefore, the Theis model should be corrected in order to be used for unconfined aquifers.
d

The corrected Theis model replaces s(r, t) on the left hand side of Eq. 2 with s ′(r , t ) , where s ′ is
te

( )
equal to s − s 2D0 , and D0 is the initial saturated thickness of the unconfined aquifer [36, 37].
2
p

Theis and corrected Theis models are used in this study for confined and unconfined case studies,
ce

respectively.
Ac

2.2. Hantush Model

The leaky-aquifer theory has been evolved from the Theis equation. In two sets of papers,

Hantush and Jacob [38] and later Hantush [39, 40], the original differentiation between the Theis

response for confined aquifers and the one for leaky aquifers was discussed. The analytical solution of

Hantush and Jacob [38] can be couched in the same form as the Theis solution (Eq. 1) but with a more

complicated well function. In analogy with Eq. (1), the drawdown is computed via,

7
Page 7 of 33
 Q
s( r, t ) = ( ) W (U , r / B ) (3)
4π T

where B is the leakage factor and W (U , r / B ) is known as the leaky well function, which is given by

∞
W (U , r / B) = ∫ (1 / y ) exp(− y − β 2 / y )dy

t
(4)

ip
U

cr
in which β = r / (2 B ) .

us
3. Methods

an
3.1. Graphical Method

As stated in the introduction, the first group of approaches for retrieving aquifer parameters is
M
graphical. In order to determine aquifer parameters such as transmissivity (T) and storage coefficient

(S), the pumping test is conducted and the drawdowns in a pumped well and in several observation
d
wells are recorded at suitable time intervals. The recorded time-drawdown data are analyzed by the
te

standard graphical methods designed for confined, unconfined and confined aquifers [27, 29, 31].

These graphical methods basically involve matching of Type curves (which vary from the type of
p

aquifers) with the corresponding field curves, finding out a match point and then calculating aquifer
ce

parameters using the Theis model (for confined and unconfined aquifers) or Hantush and Jacob model

(for leaky aquifers). In this study, the time-drawdown pumping test data of confined, unconfined and
Ac

leaky aquifers were graphically analyzed using the commonly used AquiferTest software developed

by Waterloo Hydrogeologic Incorporation (WHI), Canada. It is a graphical oriented package, and has

a wide range of methods for analyzing pumping test data of a variety of aquifers. For detailed

information on the AquiferTest software, the reader is referred to

(http://www.swstechnology.com/groundwater-software/pumping-test-analysis/aquifertest-pro).

8
Page 8 of 33
3.2. Nonlinear Programming (NLP)

As mentioned in the introduction, the second group of methods for estimating aquifer

parameters is based on nonlinear programming techniques. In this study, the well-known GAMS

(General Algebraic Modeling System; [41]) software is employed to estimate aquifer hydraulic

t
parameters from pumping test data using its NLP solvers. GAMS is a mathematical programming and

ip
optimization modeling system that has been used widely in the water resources and agricultural

cr
economics research communities [42-47].

us
GAMS has several built-in solvers for solving NLP problems, and the program itself tries to use

the best solver for each problem. One of the well-known NLP solvers in GAMS is CONOPT. Our

an
NLP problems in GAMS are solved using CONOPT. This solver is mainly developed for models with

smooth functions, but it can also be used for models with a non-differentiable function. CONOPT3,
M
the most recent version of the solver, is a gradient based algorithm that executes a sequential quadratic

programming (SQP) component. The SQP module utilizes the second derivative to obtain better
d
search directions [48]. The hydraulic parameters in our case study problems are found via a GAMS
te

optimization code. Finally, the results are compared with those of the other two methods.

3.3. Genetic Algorithm (GA)

p

The GA optimization method is based on Darwin’s theory of evaluations. In nature, individuals

ce

which have highly adaptive behaviors will have relatively a larger number of offspring and

consequently survive longer. GA is a robust optimization method seeking to mathematically reproduce

Ac

the mechanisms of natural selection [49, 50].

GA is a population based algorithm. A group of chromosomes form a population. Population size

determines the number of chromosomes in each population. In GA, parameters are presented in form

of chromosomes which, in turn, consist of genes. Traditionally, GA has been developed by applying

binary coding in which a chromosome is represented by a string of binary bits, e. g., [00101001], that

can be encoded into integer or real numbers.

9
Page 9 of 33
 A simple flowchart for GA is shown in Figure 1. The first step in GA is to initialize population

randomly. Indeed, all chromosomes in the first population are determined randomly. Then, for each

chromosome, parameters are determined by decoding genes into real values. In the next step,

chromosomes are evaluated by calculating the value of objective function for each of them.

t
GA operators mimic natural processes. The main GA operators are selection, crossover and

ip
mutation. Selection is the process by which chromosomes are chosen for participation in the

cr
reproducing process. By applying selection operator, two chromosomes usually called parents, are

us
selected based on their objective function values. Crossover involves a pair of chromosomes

exchanging a portion of their bit sequence at randomly set cutting positions. The idea behind crossover

an
is that, by exchanging blocks of bits between two chromosomes that performed well, the GA attempts

to produce two new chromosomes that preserve best materials from two parents. There are a few
M
crossover methods including one-point crossover, two-point crossover and uniform cross over [49].

The main difference between these methods is number of cutting positions. For instance, one-point
d
crossover has one cutting position while two-point crossover has two cutting positions. Figure 2 shows
te

schematically the one-point cross over. Chromosome 1 and 2 are selected as parents and then a cutting

position is selected randomly (Fig. 2). Finally, the genes on the right hand side of the position are
p

exchanged.
ce

Mutation permits introduction of new chromosomes into a population by randomly filliping a

gene. A mutation probability determines frequency of random mutations to be made to individual

Ac

genes. Crossover and mutation operations do not allow GA to get trapped in local optima and search

the decision space more vigorously and efficiently. As it is shown in Figure 1, selection, evaluation,

crossover and mutation repeat until a termination criterion is met. Termination criterion is usually

defined as reaching the maximum number of generations or if there is no changes in the value of

objective function after a specific number of generations.

Following Samuel and Jha [8] and Jha et al. [4], crossover and mutation probabilities of 0.8 and

0.015 are chosen. Population size and number of generations are set to 80 and 100, respectively [4, 8].

10
Page 10 of 33
The genetic algorithm is terminated when the maximum number of generations (i.e., 100) is reached.

The readers are referred to Goldberg [49] and Michalewicz [50] for a full description of GA.

[Figure 1 here]

t
ip
[Figure 2 here]

cr
3.4. Ant Colony Optimization (ACO)

us
Ant colony optimization (ACO) is a recently developed heuristic optimization method. It was

inspired by the fact that some kinds of ants are blind but they can find the minimum path between

an
their nest and food. This occurs because of chemical substances called pheromones that ants deposit

when they travel on a route.

M
Based on the behaviour of real ants, Dorigo et al. [51] developed the first ant colony optimization

method called Ant System (AS) to solve the travelling salesman problem (TSP) and job-shop
d

scheduling problem (JSP). The results showed that ACO dominated all other classical or heuristic
te

methods solutions [52]. Since then ACO has been applied in a variety of engineering applications [16,
p

21, 25, 53-55].

ce

Abbaspour et al. [53] developed a new approach based on the ACO concept and successfully

tested the feasibility of their approach by estimating unsaturated soil hydraulic parameters. The main
Ac

difference of Abbaspour et al. [53] method with the traditional ACO is that the initial range of

parameters in their technique can be adjusted in the optimization process. For instance, the end of

parameters intervals may be eliminated or expanded. This feature makes their method more flexible to

deal with the model parameters range identification and to more robustly explore promising search

spaces by narrowing down the search space. In this study, the Abbaspour et al. [53] ACO algorithm is

used due to its distinct advantage compared to the traditional ACO method.

11
Page 11 of 33
 The first step of ACO is to represent the search space as a graph. For this reason, each parameter

is split into a specific number of segments with a representative value assigned to each segment. Ants

travel between nodes corresponding to different parameters to define a route as illustrated in Figure 3.

In this figure, each of five parameters, V1 to V5, are discretized into six segments. In addition, three

t
sample routes are presented which show how each ant assigns a value to a parameter.

ip
[Figure 3 here]

cr
When ants travel on routes, the objective function of each route is calculated based on its

us
associated parameters. Then ants deposit pheromone on their routes according to the obtained

objective function value in a way that routes which resulted in larger objective function values receive

an
less pheromone. The following equation is used to update pheromone on segments

⎧ gu − T
M
⎪exp(4.6( )) gu ≤ T
τ u (I ) = ⎨ g min − T (5)
⎪0 gu > T
⎩
d
te

where τ u ( I ) represents the intensity of pheromone on the route u in iteration I, gu is the

corresponding objective function value of route u, g min is the minimum value of the objective
p
ce

function obtained in the current iteration and T is a critical value of the objective function, above

which a route receives no pheromone. T is calculated as follows [53]:

Ac

σg
T = g min + CT (6)
μg

where CT is a constant which is determined to be 0.5, while σ g and μ g are the mean and standard

deviation of the objective function values of the current iteration, respectively.

The main step in the algorithm is to update parameters’ intervals based on the amount of

pheromones on each segment. The idea behind this step is to use scoring strategy to eliminate or

expand segments. Once the scoring is completed, the segments which have small scores will be

12
Page 12 of 33
deleted from both ends of the intervals. On the other hand, if segments on either end of parameter

intervals have a higher score, the parameter could be extended in that direction, i.e., add specific

number of segments in that direction.

A score is calculated for each segment of a parameter by the following expression. Note that any

t
single segment may be the crossroad of many ant routes.

ip
(φij ) A (σ ij ) N
Sij = (7)

cr
∑∑
i j
(φij ) A (σ ij ) N

us
where Sij is a score, σ ij is the standard deviation of pheromones, φ ij is accumulated pheromones on

the segment j of parameter i, A is a constant equal to 1.0 and N is given by [53],

N = CN
σ ij
μij an (8)
M
where CN is a constant set equal to 0.3. In this study, number of ants is set to 100 and each parameter
d
is discretized into 500 segments.
te

4. Objective Function
p

The objective function g is defined as the sum of squared difference between the observed and
ce

calculated drawdowns:
Ac

n
g = Min( ∑ ⎡⎣ so ( t ) − sc ( t ) ⎤⎦ )
2
(9)
t =1

where so (t ) is the observed drawdown in an observation well at time t, sc (t ) is the corresponding

computed drawdown from a suitable model (Theis, Corrected Theis or Hantush Model) for the given

aquifer type, and n is the total number of observed drawdown data. The aim is to minimize the

objective function through estimating the optimum values for hydraulic parameters of aquifers. Figure

shows the flowchart of ACO algorithm for finding the hydraulic parameters of an aquifer. This

13
Page 13 of 33
flowchart is based on the ACO algorithm described in section 3.3. The iteration in the flowchart

continues until a termination criterion is satisfied. The algorithm terminated when the criterion

g = 10−4 m 2 is fulfilled or the maximum number of iterations reaches a prescribed value of 100. The

variables Q, r, t, and So (shown in Figure 2) are inputs for confined and leaky aquifers. For unconfined

t
ip
aquifers, in addition to the abovementioned variables, D0 is required as input.

[Figure 4 here]

cr
The performance of graphical, NLP, GA, and ACO methods is evaluated using the mean

us
absolute error (MAE) and the root mean square error (RMSE) metrics. These metrics are used to

assess the drawdown estimates from each approach. The coefficient of determination (R2) of linear

an
regression line between the estimated drawdown from the graphical, NLP, GA, and ACO models and

the observations is also used as a measure of performance. The low MAE and RMSE as well as high
M
R2 show that the estimated hydraulic parameters are close to their real physical values.

5. Results and Discussion

d

The AquiferTest software along with the NLP, GA, and ACO computer programs were run to
te

optimize aquifer parameters for five time-drawdown datasets associated with each type of aquifer
p

systems (confined, unconfined, and leaky). Thus, we analyzed a total of fifteen sets of time-drawdown
ce

pumping test data for three aquifer systems using graphical, GA, ACO, and NLP approaches. In this

study, the pumping test datasets associated with confined, unconfined, and leaky aquifers are denoted
Ac

respectively by C1-C5, U1-U5, and L1-L5. The datasets C1, C4, U1, U2, L1, and L2 are taken from

unpublished sources, C2 and C3 are obtained from Batu [27] and C5 is from Todd [31]. The datasets

U3, U4, U5, L3, L4, and L5 are obtained respectively from Walton [33], Fetter [29], Waltson [32],

Raghunath [30], Charbeneau [28], and Fetter [29]. These datasets in varying hydrogeologic conditions

allow us to compare the applicability, competence and robustness of the utilized methods in estimating

the hydraulic parameters of different types of aquifers. The statistical performance metrics mentioned

14
Page 14 of 33
in the previous section are used for this purpose. Finally, time-drawdown estimates from the graphical,

NLP, GA, and ACO algorithms are compared with observations.

5.1. Confined Aquifers

The datasets C2 and C3 are obtained from Batu [27], C5 datset is taken from Todd [31] and C1

t
ip
and C4 from unpublished sources. The estimated storage coefficient and transmissivity of five

explored confined aquifers from the graphical, NLP, GA, and ACO methods are shown in Table 1.

cr
These hydraulic parameters are used to compute drawdowns in the observation well at different times

us
via the Theis model (equation 1) and compare them with corresponding measurements. Statistical

indices (i.e., MAE, RMSE, and R2) associated with the computed drawdowns in the observation well

an
are presented in Table 1.

The storage coefficient and transmissivity estimates from the ACO vary respectively from
M
1.56 × 10 −4 to 5.30 × 10 −3 and 236 to 5559 m2/day. These values are in good agreement with those

obtained by the graphical, NLP, and GA methods. However, the ACO and GA results for all confined
d

aquifers datasets (C1-C5) are better than those of the graphical and NLP approaches (Table 1). The
te

MAE and RMSE of ACO and GA are always less than the ones from the graphical and NLP methods,
p

implying that ACO and GA can retrieve the hydraulic parameters of confined aquifers more
ce

accurately. As shown in Table 1, for C1, C2, C3, C4, and C5 datasets, the computed drawdown from

ACO (GA) has a RMSE of 0.2737 (0.2561), 0.0445 (0.0454), 0.0398 (0.0378), 0.0230 (0.0257), and
Ac

0.0051 m (0.0052 m), which is a 14% (20%), 34% (33%), 19% (23%), 56% (51%), and 41% (40%)

reduction of the graphical RMSE of 0.3184, 0.0676, 0.0490, 0.0521, 0.0086 m. Analogously, for the

abovementioned datasets, the MAE of estimated drawdown decreases from 0.2441, 0.0586, 0.0441,

0.0338, and 0.0067 m to 0.2372 (0.2216), 0.0388 (0.0395), 0.0321 (0.0315), 0.0163 (0.0193), and

0.0030 m (0.0033 m) by using ACO (GA) rather than the graphical approach. As can be seen in Table

1, the results of ACO and GA are close and comparable. In some of the confined aquifers (C2, C4, and

C5) ACO outperforms GA, and in others (C1 and C3) GA performs better. The ACO and GA

15
Page 15 of 33
methods have also the highest R2 value for all of confined aquifers datasets, showing that the

drawdown estimates from GA and ACO are more correlated to the observations than the ones from the

graphical and NLP techniques. Especially, for the C4 aquifer, the estimated storage coefficient and

transmissivity from ACO are significantly different from those of the other two methods. Given the

t
much better performance of ACO method (based on the statistical indices for the C4 aquifer), its

ip
hydraulic parameters estimates are more reliable and the NLP method has likely found a local

cr
minimum of objective function.

us
Overall, the statistical metrics suggest that ACO and GA are more efficient techniques for the

retrieval of hydraulic parameters of confined aquifers. Another conclusion from Table 1 is that the

an
errors associated with the NLP approach are less than those of graphical method and thus NLP can

estimate the storage coefficient and transmissivity more reliably than the graphical method.
M
[Table 1 here]
d

5.2. Unconfined Aquifers

te

Table 2 lists the estimated specific yield and hydraulic conductivity values of the five

investigated unconfined aquifers from the graphical, NLP, GA, and ACO methods. The performance
p

metrics of each technique are also presented in Table 2. Based on the ACO results, the specific yield
ce

of the unconfined aquifers ranges from 3.38 × 10 −4 to 6.93 × 10 −2 , and the hydraulic conductivity

ranges from 23 to 169 m/day. The retrieved specific yield and hydraulic conductivity from graphical,
Ac

NLP, and GA approaches are almost in the same range.

The ACO and GA methods perform better than the other two techniques. For all unconfined

aquifers, the MAE and RMSE values of ACO and GA are less than the corresponding values of the

other two methods. For U1, U2, U3, U4, and U5 datasets, the RMSE of estimated drawdown from

ACO (GA) is respectively 0.0194 (0.0300), 0.0801 (0.0671), 0.0314 (0.0320), 0.0265 (0.0403), 0.0103

m (0.0103 m), which is a factor of 67 (50), 53 (61), 37 (30), 65 (47), and 48 (50) less than the

corresponding RMSE estimates from graphical approach and a factor of 40 (35), 53 (60), 3 (1), 43

16
Page 16 of 33
(15), and 2 (5) less than the corresponding RMSE estimates from NLP method. These results prove

the capability of the ACO and GA methods in finding more accurate estimates of specific yield and

hydraulic conductivity of unconfined aquifers. Compared to GA, ACO gives slightly more accurate

aquifer parameters estimates for four of the unconfined aquifers (U1, U3, U4, and U5 datasets). While,

t
in one of the unconfined aquifers (U2 dataset), GA generates better results.

ip
Similar to the confined aquifer datasets, the NLP outperforms the graphical technique. This

cr
finding is consistent with that of Neuman et al. [56]. Aquifers are typically heterogeneous media and

us
thus their properties vary spatially such that cannot be described with certainty. Neuman et al. [56]

confirmed that time-drawdown data from randomly heterogeneous aquifers are hard to interpret

an
graphically.

[Table 2 here]
M
5.3. Leaky Aquifers
d
The storage coefficient, transmissivity, and leakage factor estimates from graphical, NLP, GA
te

and ACO approaches for the leaky aquifers are indicated in Table 3. Based on ACO results, the

storage coefficient varies from 2.25 × 10 −5 to 1.05 × 10 −3 , the transmissivity from 25.2 to 960.4
p

m2/day and leakage factor from 221.0 to 9002.6 m. The MAE and RMSE of ACO drawdown
ce

estimates are compared to those from the graphical, NLP, and GA methods (Table 3). In analogy to

the results of the confined and unconfined aquifers (Tables 1 and 2), ACO and GA perform better than
Ac

the graphical and NLP techniques. The errors of ACO and GA are always less than those of the other

two techniques. For L1, L2, L3, L4, and L5 aquifers, the ACO (GA) approach reduces the RMSE of

drawdown estimates from the NLP technique by 36% (47%), 27% (9%), 41% (12%), 39% (16%), and

55% (63%) and from the graphical method by 47% (55%), 35% (18%), 40% (12%), 64% (50%), and

58% (66%), respectively (Table 3). Similar drop is also evident in the MAE associated with ACO and

GA. Compared to the graphical and NLP methods, the ACO and GA estimates of drawdown have also

higher values of R2. These outcomes demonstrate the graphical and NLP techniques are not as

17
Page 17 of 33
efficient as ACO and GA for estimating hydraulic parameters of leaky aquifers. Likewise, Trinchero

et al. [57] showed that when various methods were applied to heterogeneous media of leaky aquifers,

each method could provide different estimates of hydraulic parameters. Comparing results of ACO

and GA reveals that none of them is superior to the other one. For L1 and L4 aquifers, GA slightly

t
outperforms ACO, but for L2, L3, and L4 aquifers, ant colony optimization method gives better

ip
results.

cr
[Table 3 here]

us
5.4. Visual Examination of Retrieved Time-Drawdown Curves

an
The efficiency of ACO and NLP optimization techniques as well as the graphical method in

estimating the hydraulic parameters of confined, unconfined and leaky aquifers is also assessed by
M
visual comparison of retrieved time-drawdown curves from these three techniques with observations.

The comparisons are illustrated in Figure 5. Since the time-drawdown curves from GA and ACO are

very close, only the one obtained by ACO is shown herein. As can be seen in these plots, drawdown
d

retrievals from ACO have always the best agreement and correlation with the observations. In all the
te

cases, the second best solution is obtained from the NLP method and the last one from the graphical
p

method. These results are consistent with the outcomes of the comparisons based on the statistical
ce

indices in the previous section.

[Figure 5 here]
Ac

5.5. Running Time of Different Methods

Besides the accuracy of graphical, NLP, GA, and ACO methods in estimating aquifer hydraulic

parameters, their running time is an important issue in groundwater engineering problems. It is of our

interest to understand which of the explored methods runs faster, especially when there are a large

number pumping test data from several aquifers.

The developed computer programs were executed on the WINDOWS operating system (Xeon

5128, 256 GB RAM, FSB 1066 MHz, 40 GB HDD), and their running times for different aquifer

18
Page 18 of 33
types are shown in Table 4. Each execution time for confined, unconfined, and leaky aquifers

represents the mean of running times for C1-C5, U1-U5, and L1-L5 datasets, respectively. As

illustrated, the ACO approach converges to the optimal solution faster than other methods, while the

graphical technique is the slowest one. On overage, for the five explored confined aquifers, the

t
running time of ACO is 57%, 26%, 37% less than that of graphical, NLP, and GA methods.

ip
Corresponding values are 53%, 20%, and 33% for the unconfined aquifers and 63%, 33%, and 42%

cr
for the leaky aquifers.

us
6. Conclusions

an
In this study, the efficiency of ant colony optimization (ACO), which usually ensures near-

optimal or optimal solutions, is examined in estimating hydraulic parameters of confined, unconfined,

M
and leaky aquifers from real time-drawdown pumping test data. An objective function is formulated

based on the misfit between drawdown observations from pumping test and corresponding drawdown
d
estimates from Theis, corrected Theis, or Hantush models, depending on the aquifer type. The ACO
te

technique is utilized to estimate the hydraulic parameters of various aquifer systems by minimizing the

objective function. Performance of ACO is compared with that of genetic algorithm (GA), graphical
p

and nonlinear programming (NLP) methods using fifteen sets of published and unpublished real time-
ce

drawdown data of three aquifer systems (i.e., five sets for each aquifer system).

The results show that ACO outperforms NLP and graphical methods for all three aquifer
Ac

systems and thus is a more reliable technique for estimating the hydraulic parameters of confined,

unconfined, and leaky aquifers. On average, for the five investigated confined aquifers, the RMSE of

estimated drawdown from ACO is 11% and 33% less than the RMSEs respectively from the NLP and

graphical methods. These values are 28% and 54% for the five unconfined aquifers and 40% and 49%

for the leaky aquifers. Similarly, GA performs better than the NLP and graphical methods. For the five

confined aquifers, on average, the drawdown estimates from ACO have a RMSE of 0.0772 m, which

is a 22 % decrease of the RMSE of 0.0991 m from the graphical method and a 9 % reduction of the

19
Page 19 of 33
RMSE of 0.0844 m from NLP. The results from ACO and GA are close and comparable. Results also

suggest that the errors associated with the NLP approach are less than those of graphical method and

thus NLP can estimate the hydraulic parameters more accurately than the graphical method.

Comparing the running time of graphical, NLP, GA, and ACO indicates that ACO converges to

t
the optimal solution faster than other methods, while the graphical approach has the lowest

ip
convergence rate.

cr
With the presence of large memory and high speed computers nowadays, the use of ACO

us
approach is strongly recommended for estimating hydraulic parameters of aquifers from the pumping

test data in lieu of the subjective and burdensome graphical and NLP methods.

References
[1]
an
K.S. Balkhair, Aquifer parameters determination for large diameter wells using neural network
M
approach, Journal of Hydrology, 265 (2002) 118-128.
[2] C.R. Fitts, Groundwater Science, Elsevier, Academic Press, 2002.
[3] Y.-C. Huang, H.-D. Yeh, The use of sensitivity analysis in on-line aquifer parameter
d

estimation, Journal of Hydrology, 335 (2007) 406-418.

te

[4] M. Jha, A. Kumar, G. Nanda, G. Bhatt, Evaluation of Traditional and Nontraditional

Optimization Techniques for Determining Well Parameters from Step-Drawdown Test Data,
p

Journal of Hydrologic Engineering, 11 (2006) 617-630.

ce

[5] M. Jha, G. Nanda, M. Samuel, Determining Hydraulic Characteristics of Production Wells

using Genetic Algorithm, Water Resources Management, 18 (2004) 353-377.
[6] S. Singh, Simple Method for Quick Estimation of Leaky-Aquifer Parameters, Journal of
Ac

Irrigation and Drainage Engineering, 136 (2010) 149-153.

[7] H.R. Vosoughifar, S.M. Bateni, A. Shamsai, Evaluating semi-analytical and numerical
methods for determining the hydrodynamic coefficient of leaky aquifers in: Third
International Conference on Water Resources Management, Portugal, 2005, pp. 111-121.
[8] M. Samuel, M. Jha, Estimation of Aquifer Parameters from Pumping Test Data by Genetic
Algorithm Optimization Technique, Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering, 129
(2003) 348-359.

20
Page 20 of 33
[9] D. Ahlfeld, G. Baro-Montes, Solving Unconfined Groundwater Flow Management Problems
with Successive Linear Programming, Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management,
134 (2008) 404-412.
[10] C.M. Colson, M.H. Nehrir, S.A. Pourmousavi, Towards real-time microgrid power
management using computational intelligence methods, in: Power and Energy Society General

t
Meeting, 2010 IEEE, 2010, pp. 1-8.

ip
[11] F.A.C. Viana, G.I. Kotinda, D.A. Rade, V. Steffen Jr, Tuning dynamic vibration absorbers by
using ant colony optimization, Computers & Structures, 86 (2008) 1539-1549.

cr
[12] K. El Harrouni, D. Ouazar, G.A. Walters, A.H.D. Cheng, Groundwater optimization and
parameter estimation by genetic algorithm and dual reciprocity boundary element method,

us
Engineering Analysis with Boundary Elements, 18 (1996) 287-296.
[13] S. Lingireddy, Aquifer Parameter Estimation Using Genetic Algorithms and Neural Networks,

an
Civil Engineering and Environmental Systems, 15 (1998) 125-144.
[14] M. Rajesh, D. Kashyap, K.S. Hari Prasad, Estimation of unconfined aquifer parameters by
genetic algorithms, Hydrological Sciences Journal, 55 (2010) 403-413.
M
[15] M. López-Ibáñez, T. Prasad, B. Paechter, Ant Colony Optimization for Optimal Control of
Pumps in Water Distribution Networks, Journal of Water Resources Planning and
Management, 134 (2008) 337-346.
d

[16] H.R. Maier, A.R. Simpson, A.C. Zecchin, W.K. Foong, K.Y. Phang, H.Y. Seah, C.L. Tan, Ant
te

Colony Optimization for Design of Water Distribution Systems, Journal of Water Resources
Planning and Management, 129 (2003) 200-209.
p

[17] A. Ostfeld, A. Tubaltzev, Ant Colony Optimization for Least-Cost Design and Operation of
ce

Pumping Water Distribution Systems, Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management,
134 (2008) 107-118.
[18] A.C. Zecchin, A.R. Simpson, H.R. Maier, J.B. Nixon, Parametric study for an ant algorithm
Ac

applied to water distribution system optimization, IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary

Computation, 9 (2005) 175-191.
[19] C. Mariano, E. Morales, MOAQ an Ant-Q Algorithm for Multiple Objective Optimization
Problem, in: W. Banzhaf (Ed.) Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference(GECCO),
Morgan Kaufmann, 1999, pp. 894-901.
[20] Y. Li, A.B.C. Hilton, An Algorithm for Groundwater Long-Term Monitoring Spatial
Optimization by Analogy to Ant Colony Optimization for TSP, in: World Environmental and
Water Resource Congress 2006, pp. 1-6.

21
Page 21 of 33
[21] D.N. Kumar, M.J. Reddy, Ant Colony Optimization for Multi-Purpose Reservoir Operation,
Water Resources Management, 20 (2006) 879-898.
[22] R. Moeini, M.H. Afshar, Application of an Ant Colony Optimization Algorithm for Optimal
Operation of Reservoirs: A Comparative Study of Three Proposed Formulations, Transaction
A: Civil Engineering, 16 (2009) 273-285.

t
[23] V. Nourani, S. Talatahari, P. Monadjemi, S. Shahradfar, Application of ant colony

ip
optimization to optimal design of open channels, Journal of Hydraulic Research, 47 (2009)
656-665.

cr
[24] X. He, J.J. Liu, Aquifer Parameter Identification with Ant Colony Optimization Algorithm, in:
Intelligent Systems and Applications, 2009. ISA 2009. International Workshop on, 2009, pp. 1-

us
4.
[25] B. Ataie-Ashtiani, H. Ketabchi, Elitist Continuous Ant Colony Optimization Algorithm for

an
Optimal Management of Coastal Aquifers, Water Resources Management, 25 (2011) 165-190.
[26] S. Li, Y. Liu, H. Yu, Parameter Estimation Approach in Groundwater Hydrology Using Hybrid
Ant Colony System, in: D.-S. Huang, K. Li, G. Irwin (Eds.) Computational Intelligence and
M
Bioinformatics, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2006, pp. 182-191.
[27] V. Batu, Aquifer Hydraulics: A Comprehensive Guide to Hydrogeologic Data Analysis, Wiley,
1998.
d

[28] R.J. Charbeneau, Groundwater Hydraulics And Pollutant Transport, Waveland Press,
te

Incorporated, 2006.
[29] C.W. Fetter, Applied Hydrogeology, Charles E. Merrill Publishing Company, 1980.
p

[30] H.M. Raghunath, Ground Water, New Age International (P) Limited, 2007.
ce

[31] D.K. Todd, GROUNDWATER HYDROLOGY, 2ND ED, Wiley India Pvt. Limited, 1980.
[32] W.C. Walton, Groundwater resource evaluation, McGraw-Hill, 1970.
[33] W.C. Walton, Aquifer Test Analysis with WindowsTM Software, CRC/Lewis Publishers,
Ac

1996.
[34] C.V. Theis, The relation between the lowering of the Piezometric surface and the rate and
duration of discharge of a well using ground-water storage, Transactions American
Geophysical Union, 16 (1935) 519-524.
[35] P.-H. Tseng, T.-C. Lee, Numerical evaluation of exponential integral: Theis well function
approximation, Journal of Hydrology, 205 (1998) 38-51.
[36] C.E. Jacob, Notes on Determining Permeability by Pumping Tests Under Water-table
Conditions, The Author, 1944.

22
Page 22 of 33
[37] S.P. Neuman, Analysis of pumping test data from anisotropic unconfined aquifers considering
delayed gravity response, Water Resources Research, 11 (1975) 329-342.
[38] M.S. Hantush, C.E. Jacob, Non-steady radial flow in an infinite leaky aquifer, Transactions
American Geophysical Union, 36 (1955) 95-100.
[39] M.S. Hantush, Analysis of data from pumping tests in leaky aquifers, Transactions American

t
Geophysical Union, 37 (1956) 702-714.

ip
[40] M.S. Hantush, Modification of the theory of leaky aquifers, Journal of Geophysical Research,
65 (1960) 3713-3725.

cr
[41] A. Brooke, D. Kendrick, A. Meeraus, GAMS: release 2.25 : a user's guide, Scientific Press,
1992.

us
[42] M. Ahmad, G.P. Kutcher, Irrigation planning with environmental considerations : a case study
of Pakistan's Indus Basin / Masood Ahmad and Gary P. Kutcher, World Bank, 1992.

an
[43] N. Alam, T. Olsthoorn, Sustainable conjunctive use of surface and groundwater: Modeling on
the basin scale, International journal of natural resources and marine sciences, (2011).
[44] K.C. Knapp, M. Weinberg, R. Howitt, J.F. Posnikoff, Water transfers, agriculture, and
M
groundwater management: a dynamic economic analysis, Journal of Environmental
Management, 67 (2003) 291-301.
[45] A.M. Michelsen, R.A. Young, Optioning Agricultural Water Rights for Urban Water Supplies
d

During Drought, American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 75 (1993) 1010-1020.

te

[46] S. Peña-Haro, M. Pulido-Velazquez, A. Sahuquillo, A hydro-economic modelling framework

for optimal management of groundwater nitrate pollution from agriculture, Journal of
p

Hydrology, 373 (2009) 193-203.

ce

[47] D. Pulido-Velazquez, D. Ahlfeld, J. Andreu, A. Sahuquillo, Reducing the computational cost

of unconfined groundwater flow in conjunctive-use models at basin scale assuming linear
behaviour: The case of Adra-Campo de Dalías, Journal of Hydrology, 353 (2008) 159-174.
Ac

[48] A.S. Drud, CONOPT: A System for Large-Scale Nonlinear Optimization, Reference Manual
for CONOPT Subroutine Library, in, ARKI Consulting and Development A/S, Bagsvaerd,
Denmark, 1996.
[49] D.E. Goldberg, Genetic Algorithms in Search, Optimization, and Machine Learning, Addison-
Wesley, 1989.
[50] Z. Michalewicz, Genetic Algorithms + Data Structures = Evolution Programs, Springer, 1996.
[51] M. Dorigo, V. Maniezzo, A. Colorni, Ant system: optimization by a colony of cooperating
agents, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics–Part B, 26 (1996) 29-41.
[52] M. Dorigo, T. Stutzle, Ant Colony Optimization, The MIT Press, 2004.

23
Page 23 of 33
[53] K.C. Abbaspour, R. Schulin, M.T. van Genuchten, Estimating unsaturated soil hydraulic
parameters using ant colony optimization, Advances in Water Resources, 24 (2001) 827-841.
[54] M. Afshar, R. Moeini, Partially and Fully Constrained Ant Algorithms for the Optimal
Solution of Large Scale Reservoir Operation Problems, Water Resources Management, 22
(2008) 1835-1857.

t
[55] M. Jalali, A. Afshar, M. Mariño, Multi-Colony Ant Algorithm for Continuous Multi-Reservoir

ip
Operation Optimization Problem, Water Resources Management, 21 (2007) 1429-1447.
[56] S.P. Neuman, A. Blattstein, M. Riva, D.M. Tartakovsky, A. Guadagnini, T. Ptak, Type curve

cr
interpretation of late-time pumping test data in randomly heterogeneous aquifers, Water
Resources Research, 43 (2007) W10421.

us
[57] P. Trinchero, X. Sanchez-Vila, N. Copty, A. Findikakis, A new method for the interpretation of
pumping tests in leaky aquifers, Ground Water, 46 (2008) 133-143.

an
M
d
p te
ce
Ac

24
Page 24 of 33
Figure captions:
Figure 1. Flowchart of GA method.

Figure 2. Schematic illustration of one point crossover.

Figure 3. Schematic of ant routes traveling between five discrete parameters.

t
ip
Figure 4. ACO algorithm for identifying hydraulic parameters of an aquifer.

Figure 5. Comparison of time-drawdown plots from graphical, NLP, and ACO techniques for sample

cr
confined (datasets C3 and C4), unconfined (datasets U1, U2, and U4), and leaky (dataset L1) aquifers.

us
Table captions:

an
Table 1. Comparison of estimated hydraulic parameters from graphical, NLP, GA, and ACO
techniques for confined aquifers. The best results and its associated method are bolded.

Table 2. Comparison of estimated hydraulic parameters from graphical, NLP, GA, and ACO
M
techniques for unconfined aquifers. The best results and its associated method are bolded.

Table 3. Comparison of estimated hydraulic parameters from graphical, NLP, GA, and ACO
d

techniques for leaky aquifers. The best results and its associated method are bolded.
te

Table 4. Comparing running times of graphical, NLP, GA and ACO techniques for various aquifer
types. The lowest running time and its associated approach are bolded.
p
ce
Ac

25
Page 25 of 33
 t
ip
cr
us
an
M
d
te
p
ce
Ac

Figure 1. Flowchart of GA method.

26
Page 26 of 33
 t
ip
cr
us
an
Figure 2. Schematic illustration of one point crossover
M
d
p te
ce
Ac

27
Page 27 of 33
 t
ip
cr
us
an
Figure 3. Schematic of ant routes traveling between five discrete parameters.
M
d
p te
ce
Ac

28
Page 28 of 33
 t
ip
Start

cr
Initiate ACO System

Randomly generate initial routes (initial

us
values for unknown aquifer parameters)

Calculate Well Function Input Q, r, t, So

an
Calculate drawdown (Sc)
M
Calculate Objective Function
g = ∑ (S c − S o )
2

Iter. No. =
d

Iter. No + 1
Output
te

Is convergence Yes (solution of

End
criteria met? aquifer
parameters)
p

No
ce

- Update pheromone on segments

-Calculate score of each segment
- Update aquifer parameters’ intervals
Ac

Figure 4. ACO algorithm for identifying hydraulic parameters of an aquifer.

29
Page 29 of 33
 t
ip
cr
us
an
M
d
p te
ce
Ac

Figure 5. Comparison of time-drawdown plots from graphical, NLP, and ACO techniques for sample confined
(datasets C3 and C4), unconfined (datasets U1, U2, and U4), and leaky (dataset L1) aquifers.

30
Page 30 of 33
Table 1. Comparison of estimated hydraulic parameters from graphical, NLP, GA, and ACO
techniques for confined aquifers. The best results and its associated method are bolded.

Storage Transmissivity MAE RMSE

Dataset Method R2

t
2
Coefficient (m /day) (m) (m)

ip
Graphical 0.002214 2090 0.2441 0.3184 0.9251
Confined1 NLP 0.001240 2285 0.2766 0.2931 0.9215

cr
(C1) GA 0.001998 2195 0.2216 0.2561 0.9300
ACO 0.001860 2021 0.2372 0.2737 0.9270

us
Graphical 0.000203 237 0.0586 0.0676 0.9861
Confined2 NLP 0.000174 234 0.0402 0.0457 0.9865
(C2) GA 0.000166 235 0.0395 0.0454 0.9871
ACO 0.000156 236 0.0388 0.0445 0.9868

an
Graphical 0.000307 256 0.0441 0.0490 0.9868
Confined3 NLP 0.000287 245 0.0324 0.0398 0.9873
(C3) GA 0.000289 247 0.0315 0.0378 0.9882
M
ACO 0.000287 246 0.0321 0.0398 0.9877
Graphical 0.002993 13929 0.0338 0.0521 0.8854
Confined4 NLP 0.001819 12096 0.0293 0.0382 0.9132
d
(C4) GA 0.003891 7819 0.0193 0.0257 0.9324
ACO 0.005302 5559 0.0163 0.0230 0.9464
te

Graphical 0.000199 1142 0.0067 0.0086 0.9996

Confined5 NLP 0.000192 1140 0.0031 0.0053 0.9997
(C5) GA 0.000193 1139 0.0033 0.0052 0.9997
p

ACO 0.000195 1136 0.0030 0.0051 0.9997

ce
Ac

31
Page 31 of 33
Table 2. Comparison of estimated hydraulic parameters from graphical, NLP, GA, and ACO
techniques for confined aquifers. The best results and its associated method are bolded.

Hydraulic
Specific MAE RMSE
Dataset Method Conductivity R2
Yield (m) (m)
(m/day)

t
ip
Graphical 0.02492 80 0.0493 0.0598 0.9665
Unconfined1 NLP 0.01627 116 0.0296 0.0323 0.9672
GA 0.02912 71 0.0255 0.0300 0.9701

cr
(U1)
ACO 0.02476 78 0.0167 0.0194 0.9792
Graphical 0.01036 55 0.1475 0.1724 0.8309

us
Unconfined2 NLP 0.00474 58 0.1496 0.1704 0.8023
(U2) GA 0.07532 31 0.0489 0.0671 0.9724
ACO 0.06928 23 0.0646 0.0801 0.9616

an
Graphical 0.00687 200 0.0402 0.0506 0.9463
Unconfined3 NLP 0.00491 183 0.0288 0.0322 0.9525
(U3) GA 0.00551 195 0.2880 0.0320 0.9571
M
ACO 0.00651 169 0.0283 0.0314 0.9582
Graphical 0.06280 156 0.0507 0.0755 0.9713
Unconfined4 NLP 0.03771 150 0.0390 0.0472 0.9725
(U4) GA 0.04619 134 0.0317 0.0403 0.9906
d

ACO 0.06886 112 0.0191 0.0265 0.9870

te

Graphical 0.000639 112 0.0177 0.0200 0.9626

Unconfined5 NLP 0.000352 110 0.0089 0.0105 0.9717
(U5) GA 0.000317 115 0.0091 0.0103 0.9721
p

ACO 0.000338 112 0.0087 0.0103 0.9730

ce
Ac

32
Page 32 of 33
Table 3. Comparison of estimated hydraulic parameters from graphical, NLP, GA and ACO
techniques for leaky aquifers. The best results and its associated method are bolded.

Storage Transmissivity Leakage MAE RMSE

Dataset Method R2
coefficient (m2/day) factor (m) (m) (m)
Graphical 0.0000599 860.5 1997.0 0.0065 0.0079 0.9987

t
Leaky1 NLP 0.0000674 704.8 933.4 0.0058 0.0066 0.9963

ip
(L1) GA 0.0000901 820.9 1341.6 0.0027 0.0035 0.9991
ACO 0.0000814 772.4 1692.0 0.0033 0.0042 0.9987

cr
Graphical 0.0000140 1045.4 9985.2 0.0054 0.0072 0.9979
Leaky2 NLP 0.0000477 793.7 2500.0 0.0056 0.0065 0.9968
(L2) GA 0.0000040 1001.5 7560.3 0.0051 0.0069 0.9974

us
ACO 0.0000225 960.4 9002.6 0.0039 0.0047 0.9983
Graphical 0.0010300 181.4 159.9 0.0619 0.0866 0.9881
Leaky3 NLP 0.0009842 228.7 408.7 0.0644 0.0878 0.9852

an
(L3) GA 0.0011000 210.3 345.1 0.0588 0.0765 0.9804
ACO 0.0010460 183.1 221.0 0.0401 0.0519 0.9940
Graphical 0.0001960 22.9 192.9 0.0557 0.0719 0.9946
Leaky4
M
NLP 0.0001196 29.1 474.5 0.0358 0.0422 0.9956
(L4) GA 0.0001256 27.6 341.1 0.0267 0.0356 0.9971
ACO 0.0001377 25.2 250.8 0.0197 0.0255 0.9984
Graphical 0.0001480 26.4 292.1 0.0515 0.06985 0.9931
d

Leaky5 NLP 0.0000840 31.5 457.2 0.0492 0.06477 0.9954

te

(L5) GA 0.0001321 22.1 221.3 0.0202 0.02356 0.9991

ACO 0.0001270 25.4 256.1 0.0233 0.02899 0.9986
p

Table 4. Comparing running times of graphical, NLP, GA and ACO techniques for various aquifer
ce

types. The lowest running time and its associated approach are bolded.

Aquifer Type Method Running Time (s)

Ac

Graphical 18.9
NLP 11.1
Confined (C1-C5)
GA 13.0
ACO 8.2
Graphical 20.0
NLP 11.8
Unconfined (U1-U5)
GA 14.0
ACO 9.4
Graphical 46.4
NLP 25.3
Leaky (L1-L5)
GA 28.3
ACO 16.8

33
Page 33 of 33