Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Analysis of hydraulic conductivity of fractured groundwater flow media using artificial neural network back propagation

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Neural Computing and Applications Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Groundwater flow in the Grasberg open-pit mine is governed by fractured flow media. Groundwater modeling in fractured media requires detailed hydraulic conductivity (K) value distribution to illustrate hydrogeological conditions of the Grasberg open-pit mine properly. The value of K is estimated by using the hydraulic conductivity (HC) system method based on rock quality designation (RQD), lithology permeability index (LPI), depth index (DI), and gouge content designation (GCD) data. Accordingly, all parameters must be available, but in this case, this information are only partially available. This paper proposes a method to solve this problem with artificial neural network (ANN) through a five approach scenario to find the K value with a model of incomplete empirical parameters. The artificial neural network back propagation (ANNBP) method is used to estimate the distributed K value based on the distributed observed RQD and LPI, as shown in the block model. This paper uses five optimum architectural schemes consisting of learning rate selection, momentum coefficient, number of nodes, number of hidden layers, activation method (sigmoid, tangent hyperbolic and Gaussian). Verification of the results of the K value is approached by the statistical approaches determination coefficient (R2), correlation coefficient (R), standard error of estimate (SEE), root-mean-squared (RMS), and normal root mean square (NRMS). ANNBP modeling used data for training and testing based on packer test and slug test as many as 49 points. Through five scenarios, it was found that scenario with learning rates of 10–5, momentum coefficient 0.1, number of nodes 10, number of hidden layer 5, with hyperbolic tangent activation methods is the most optimum result with R2 = 0.822, the accuracy of predicting/validating results is expressed by using R2 = 0.863, with R = 0.929, and the error percentage = 3.67%. The K value prediction results are used as an input for groundwater modeling. The modeling results show a significant correlation with high validity between the data extracted from the model and field observation. In a 3D model, the K value distribution is similar to the field RQD data distribution. Furthermore, the K value distribution results are clustered in order to understand the relationship between geological as well as geotechnical data. The highest K values are found in volcanic breccia rocks (DLMVB), volcanic sediments (DLMVS), volcanic andesite (DLMVA) and quaternary glacial till. The geological condition is confirmed by the average rock RQD value between 12.4 and 39.6%.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Modified from Suwardi and Margotomo [23]

Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Silaen H, Pramuji, Ginting A, Widyanto D, Waromi I (2011) Hydrogeological and pore water pressure characterization at south west sector of Grasberg open pit, Papua. In: Proceedings JCM Makassar the 36th HAGI and 40th IAGI annual convention and exhibition

  2. Leech S, McGann M (2007) Open pit slope depressurization using horizontal drains—a case study newmont. https://www.imwa.info/docs/imwa_2008/IMWA2008_035_Leech.pdf. Download on 16 July 2014

  3. Widodo LE, Cahyadi TA, Syihab Z, Notosiswoyo S, Iskandar I, Rustamaji H (2018) Development of drain hole design optimisation: a conceptual model for open pit mine slope drainage system with fractured media using a multi-stage genetic algorithm. Environ Earth Sci 77:721

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Rahardjo H, Hritzuk KJ, Leong EC, Rezaur RB (2003) Effectiveness of horizontal drains for slope stability. Eng Geol 69:295–308

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Cahyadi TA, Widodo LE, Syihab Z, Notosiswoyo S, Widijanto E (2017) Hydraulic conductivity modelling of fractured rock at grasberg surface mine, Papua-Indonesia. J Eng Sci Technol 49(1):37–57

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Hsu S, Lo H, Chi S, Ku C (2011) Rock mass hydraulic conductivity estimated by two empirical models. In: Dikinya O (ed) Developments in hydraulic conductivity research. InTech, New York, pp 134–158

    Google Scholar 

  7. Lavenue AM, Pickens JF (1992) Application of a coupled adjoin sensitivity and kriging approach to calibrate a groundwater flow model. Water Resour Res 28(6):1543–1569

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. McKinney DC, Loucks DP (1992) Network design for predicting groundwater contamination. Water Resour Res 28(1):133–147

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Eggleston JR, Rojstaczer SA, Peirce JJ (1996) Identification of hydraulic conductivity structure in sand and gravel aquifer: Cape Cod data set. Water Resour Res 32(5):1209–1222

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Fabbri P (1997) Transmissivity in the geothermal Euganean basin: a geostatistical analysis. Ground Water 35(5):881–887

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Iskandar I, Koike K (2011) Distinguishing potential sources of arsenic released to groundwater around a fault zone containing a minesite. Environ Earth Sci 63:595–608

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Wu J, Zheng C, Chien CC (2005) Cost effective sampling network design for contaminant plume monitoring under general hydrogeological conditions. J Contam Hydrol 77:41–65

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Maedeh PA, Mehrdadi N, Bidhendi GRN, Abyaneh HZ (2013) Application of artificial neural network to predict total dissolved solids variations in groundwater of Tehran Plain, Iran. Int J Environ Sustain 2(1):10–20

    Google Scholar 

  14. Nasr M, Zahran HF (2014) Using of pH as a tool to predict salinity of groundwater for irrigation purpose using artificial neural network. Egypt J Aquat Res 40:111–115

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Mohammadi AA, Ghaderpoori M, Yousefi M, Rahmatipoor M, Javan S (2016) Prediction and modeling of fluoride concentrations in groundwater resources using an artificial neural network: a case study in Khaf. Environ Health Eng Manag J 3(4):217–224

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Ghose D, Das U, Roy P (2018) Modelling response of runoff and evapotranspiration for predicting water table depth in arid region using dynamic recurrent neural network. Groundw Sustain Dev. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gsd.2018.01.007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Sun J, Zhao Z, Zhang Y (2011) Determination of three dimensional hydraulic conductivities using a combined analytical/neural network model. Tunn Undergr Space Technol 26:310–319

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Herrera E, Garfias J (2013) Characterizing a fractured aquifer in Mexico using geological attributes related to open pit groundwater. Hydrogeol J 21:1323–1338

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Mayer JM, Allen DM, Gibson HD, Mackle DC (2014) Application of statistical approach to analyze geological, geotechnical and hydrogeological data at a fracture-rock mine site in Northern Canada. Hydrogeol J. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10040-014-1140-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Yang FR, Lee CH, Kung WJ, Yeh HF (2009) The impact of tunnelling construction on the hydrogeological environment of “Tseng-Wen Reservoir Transbasin Diversion Project Taiwan. Eng Geol 103:39–58

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. MacDonald G, Arnold L (1994) Geological and geochemical zoning of the grasberg igneous complex, Irian Jaya, Indonesia. J Geochem Explor 50:143–178

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. McDowell F (1996) Pliocene Cu-Au bearing igneous intrusions of the Gunung Bijih District, Irian Jaya, Indonesia, K-Ar geochronology. J Geol 104:327–340

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Suwardi E, Margotomo W (1998) Geology and hydrothermal characteristics zone alteration, mineralization deposition in contacts intrusion in grasberg copper-gold porphyry-Irian Jaya. In: Bahasa Indonesia, Proceeding IAGI XXVII

  24. Sapiie B (1994) Structural geologic studies along heat road and Grasberg area in the Ertsberg (Gunung Bijih) Mining District, Irian Jaya. Department of Geological Sciences University of Texas at Austin, Indonesia

    Google Scholar 

  25. Antoro B, Margotomo W, Perdana A, Widijanto E, Wiwoho N, Ginting AP, Santosa RGI, Pramuji, Silaen H, Setyadi H, Iribaram F, Mundu S, Garjito W, Sumarwan F, Rohmadi A, Setiadi T, Afwan A, Asrizal, Pahala AR, Prasetyo N (2011) Geology and geotechnic grasberg open pit mining PTFI. Aksara Buana (in Bahasa Indonesia)

  26. Deere DU, Hendron AJ, Patton FD, Cording EJ (1967) Design of surface and near surface construction in rock. In: Proceedings of 8th U.S. symposium. Rock mechanics, AIME, New York, pp 237–302

  27. Schaap MG, Bouten W (1996) Modeling water retention curves of sandy soils using neural networks. Water Resour 32(10):3033–3040

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Rumelhart DE, Hinton GE, Williams RJ (1986) Learning internal representations by error propagation. In: Rumelhart DE, McClelland JL (eds) Parallel distributed processing: foundation, chap 88, vol 1. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp 318–362

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  29. Jung SK, McDonald K (2011) Visual gene developer: a fully programmable bioinformatics software for synthetic gene optimization. BMC Bioinform 12(1):340

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Jain AK, Dubes RC (1988) Algorithms for clustering data. Prentice Hall advanced reference series. Prentice Hall, Englewood-Cliffs

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  31. Jain AK, Murty MN, Flynn PJ (1999) Data clustering: a review. ACM Comput Surv 31:264–323

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Widodo LE, Cahyadi TA, Notosiswoyo S, Widijanto E (2016) Application of clustering system to analyse geological, geotechnical, and hydrogeological data base according to HC-system approach. In: 9th Asian rock mechanic symposium, pp 1175–1183

  33. Warren JE, Root PJ (1963) Behaviour of naturally fractured reservoirs. Sot Per Eng J Trans AIME 228:245–255

    Google Scholar 

  34. Singhal BBS, Gupta RP (1999) Applied hydrogeology of fractured rocks. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht

    Book  Google Scholar 

  35. Hydrogeological, Inc (2000) Visual Modflow Software (version 2.8.1)

  36. Guilford JP (1956) Fundamental statistic in psychology and education. McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York

    Google Scholar 

  37. Sarma DD (2009) Goestatistics with application in earth science, 2nd edn. Springer, Berlin

    Book  Google Scholar 

  38. Wei ZQ, Egger P, Descoeudres F (1995) Permeability predictions for jointed rock masses. Int J Rock Mech Miner Sci Geomech 32:251–326

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Remy N, Boucher A (2011) SGeMS v2.5b. https://sgems.sourceforge.net/

  40. Pramuji, Silaen H, Ginting A, Widijanto E (2012) Local geology model refinement for dewatering target selection of grasberg open pit mine, Papua. In: The 41st IAGI annual convention and exhibition

  41. Widodo LE, Cahyadi TA, Syihab Z, Notosiswoyo S, Rustamaji HC, Iskandar I (2018) Development of drain hole design optimisation: a conceptual model for open pit mine slope drainage system with fractured media using a multi-stage genetic algorithm. Environ Earth Sci 77:721

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the Research Institution and Community Services of Bandung Institute of Technology for P3MI 2017, 2018, 2019 research funding and UPN “Veteran” Yogyakarta for the support; Dr Amega for being a discussion partner in developing the simulation and optimization model; Mr Eman Widijanto, manager of Grasberg GeoEngineering, for allowing the authors to study the dewatering system at PTFI; and Dr Koesnaryo of the Department of Mining Engineering, UPN ‘Veteran’ Yogyakarta, for allowing the authors to use the visual license of the Visual MODFLOW 2.8.1 for this research. The authors are also grateful to Respati Muhammad, Aldin Ardian and Dr Agus Haris Widayat for proofreading this manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Mining Engineering, UPN Veteran Yogyakarta, Yogyakarta, Indonesia

    Tedy Agung Cahyadi

  2. Faculty of Mining and Petroleum Engineering, Bandung Institute of Technology, Bandung, Indonesia

    Zuher Syihab, Lilik Eko Widodo & Sudarto Notosiswoyo

  3. Surface Mine GeoEngineering, PTFI, South Jakarta, Indonesia

    Eman Widijanto

Authors
  1. Tedy Agung Cahyadi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Zuher Syihab
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Lilik Eko Widodo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Sudarto Notosiswoyo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Eman Widijanto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tedy Agung Cahyadi.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Cahyadi, T.A., Syihab, Z., Widodo, L.E. et al. Analysis of hydraulic conductivity of fractured groundwater flow media using artificial neural network back propagation. Neural Comput & Applic 33, 159–179 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-020-04970-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-020-04970-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation