Groundwater resources meet a substantial portion of Iran's water demands, making awareness of groundwater quality essential for effective resource management. However, direct water quality monitoring is both time-consuming and costly. This study aims to optimize the monitoring network for groundwater quality at the Eshtehard plain, Iran, to reduce operational costs while maximizing information gained. A simulation–optimization approach is developed based on entropy theory, using SWAT to simulate runoff and nitrate recharge to the aquifer. Groundwater flow and quality are further modeled with MODFLOW–MT3DMS, while a genetic algorithm (GA) in MATLAB determines the optimal configuration of monitoring wells. Runoff calibration in SWAT achieved a coefficient of determination of 0.85 and a Nash–Sutcliffe efficiency of 0.81. For the groundwater model, NS values of 0.99 and 0.75 were achieved for steady-state and transient calibrations, respectively. Results indicate that 7 wells, out of 19 active monitoring wells, can provide sufficient qualitative information, allowing reduced sampling effort. To validate these findings, the fuzzy C-means clustering method was applied for comparative analysis. A joint entropy-based comparison revealed that the FCM-derived network provided less information significance than the GA-optimized network, underscoring the robustness of the proposed approach for designing efficient groundwater quality monitoring networks.

  • The study optimizes the groundwater quality monitoring well network and costs using the entropy theory at the Eshtehard plain, Iran.

  • SWAT estimates runoff/nitrate recharge, MODFLOW–MT3DMS simulates groundwater quantity/quality, and GA in MATLAB optimizes well design.

  • Selects 7 optimal wells from 19, maximizing information gain; outperforms fuzzy C-means clustering in robustness.

Extractable water resources are classified as groundwater and surface water and have a cycle of interactions. The operating conditions of water resources over time affect groundwater resources management. Operating parameters such as aquifer extraction to develop the agricultural system, urban expansion, and population growth can change in a region (Shourian & Davoudi 2017; Ghaseminejad & Shourian 2019). The addition of a water resource, e.g., a reservoir, to the aquifer system to supply water demands may lead to a different management approach to the aquifer, for surface and groundwater resources are interdependent. In fact, a change in one of the two resources will quantitatively and qualitatively change the other one (Ehtiat et al. 2018). The efficient management of groundwater systems would require reliable and valid data which could be collected through quantitative and qualitative groundwater monitoring (Khader & McKee 2014). These data are collected from a monitoring network, which consists of a set of observational wells distributed randomly across the region (Ayvaz & Elçi 2018).

Monitoring network optimization is a decision-making procedure for obtaining the optimal combination of the wells. Optimization is conducted when monitoring stations are distributed inefficiently and/or insufficiently and could not reliably measure the relevant parameters or when an excessively large number of wells are employed and report unnecessarily high quantities of data. It can also lead to a cost-inefficient monitoring network. In the following, some studies carried out in this field are included: Ning & Chang (2005) reported that the position and distribution optimization of stations in a monitoring network would require empirical data, intuition, and expert knowledge. Wu et al. (2005) proposed the removal of unnecessary samples to reduce the sampling cost in groundwater quality monitoring through a simulation–optimization approach. They employed a hybrid MODFLOW–MT3DMS model to simulate the groundwater flow and implemented the genetic algorithm (GA) to optimize the monitoring network. An optimal monitoring network should provide sufficient rather than excessive data. In other words, monitoring stations should not be distributed; therefore, sufficient data are obtained in some regions, whereas excessive data are provided in other regions (Yeh et al. 2006).

A monitoring network design could be optimized by using a variety of techniques. Several criteria can be employed to select an effective optimization technique. The available water yield and dataset size/type are the most important criteria. A review of the literature indicates that the modeling of the flow and mineral transport can be utilized to design a monitoring network. In such approaches, the groundwater level and quality data are collected by identifying the hydrological system and aquifer contamination distribution. In this regard, Bashi-Azghadi & Kerachian (2010) adopted the MODFLOW and MT3D models to identify the groundwater flow and qualitative aquifer behavior in groundwater quality monitoring network optimization. Luo et al. (2016) used MODFLOW and MT3DMS in order to identify groundwater quality and trend in the aquifer. Shafiei et al. (2013) defined an optimal network as a network in which the distribution of stations allowed for accurately estimating the stations with no observational data. Monitoring network optimization is implemented by increasing, reducing, relocating, or redesigning stations. The station increase, relocation, and redesign approaches are employed more often for rain gauge or hydrometric networks than for groundwater monitoring networks (Akbarzadeh et al. 2016).

In the present research, it is aimed to develop a model to optimize the number of groundwater monitoring wells. Such a model should relatively consider the behavior determinants of the aquifer system. To find the optimal network for monitoring a groundwater resource system, it is necessary to integrate the simulation models with an optimization routine. Hence, the predefined objectives are required for the design of the monitoring networks. In this paper, a new approach based on the concept of information agglomeration is developed to obtain the optimal monitoring network and characterize the entropy criteria in locations with a high number of multivariate data. For this purpose, the soil and water assessment tool (SWAT) is utilized to simulate the surface water resources and estimate the spatiotemporal distributions of the nitrate flow and water percolation into the aquifer. The MODFLOW model is employed to simulate the groundwater resources and obtain the groundwater level and other aquifers' responses to the hydrologic variations. Moreover, MT3DMS is used to estimate the nitrate content in the desired locations. The optimization of monitoring wells is formulated using the entropy theory by the GA in MATLAB to optimize the number of nitrate measurement wells.

Case study

The Eshtehard plain has been selected as the case study region, situated in the northern part of the Namak Lake basin in Alborz Province, Iran. It encompasses a total area of 805 km2. The plain features an alluvial aquifer covering approximately 245.2 km2 which constitutes 30% of the total area. The city of Eshtehard serves as the most significant settlement in the region. Annual water demands for potable, industrial, and agricultural use in the Eshtehard plain are estimated at 0.34, 0.66, and 26.06 million cubic meters (MCM), respectively. Major irrigated crops in the area include wheat, barley, and cotton. The agricultural water demand is primarily met through groundwater resources, while surface water contributions are negligible. The excessive extraction of groundwater has resulted in significant reductions in groundwater levels and subsidence within the region. Figure 1 illustrates the location of the case study.
Figure 1

Location of the Eshtehard plain (Akbari et al. 2022).

Figure 1

Location of the Eshtehard plain (Akbari et al. 2022).

Close modal
The Shur River is the sole river within the Eshtehard plain. It is classified as a seasonal river, originating from the confluence of the Kordan and Abharood Rivers. The Asefoddoleh hydrometric station monitors the outflow of the Shur River and serves as the primary outflow measurement station for the Eshtehard plain. This station records an average annual flow of 0.732 m3/s, equivalent to 25MCM per year. The average annual temperature and precipitation in the plain are 14 °C and 214.8 mm, respectively. A total of 29 wells are utilized to assess groundwater quality; nitrate concentration measurements are available for 25 of these wells, with valid datasets obtained from 19 wells. The locations of the nitrate monitoring wells in the Eshtehard plain are illustrated in Figure 2.
Figure 2

Location of the nitrate measurement wells in the Eshtehard plain.

Figure 2

Location of the nitrate measurement wells in the Eshtehard plain.

Close modal

Methodology

The research methodology consists of two main steps:

  • 1. Surface water modeling: Firstly, a surface water model is developed in SWAT. The model is calibrated and validated using SWAT-CUP to provide an accurate representation of water percolation and nitrate recharge rates to the aquifer. These rates are extracted from the outputs of the SWAT model.

  • 2. Groundwater simulation and quality monitoring: After surface water modeling, the aquifer is simulated quantitatively and qualitatively using MODFLOW and MT3DMS models, based on previously obtained recharge and hydrological data. The nitrate content in 19 nitrate monitoring wells from October 2010 to September 2018 is determined through MT3DMS simulations.

Additionally, a GA routine is developed based on entropy theory to exclude insignificant monitoring wells from the existing network. The significant wells with higher entropy values are reported as the optimal groundwater quality monitoring network.

The workflow of the proposed methodology in this research is shown in Figure 3.
Figure 3

Workflow for groundwater monitoring network design used in this study.

Figure 3

Workflow for groundwater monitoring network design used in this study.

Close modal

SWAT model

The SWAT model is an advanced software for hydrological simulation used in ArcGIS, incorporating processes such as evapotranspiration, runoff, and deep percolation. This model plays a crucial role in assessing the interactions between surface and groundwater resources in the Eshtehard plain and examining the impact of land management practices on water quality and quantity in complex watersheds with various land uses and soil types (Ehtiat et al. 2018; Aliyari et al. 2019). Digital elevation models (DEMs) with a resolution of 30 m were utilized to delineate watersheds, slopes, and sub-basin areas. Land-use and soil type data were obtained from the Ministry of Agriculture and the Global Soil Map. The study area was divided into 21 sub-basins and 167 hydrologic response units (HRUs), which represent regions with similar land cover, soil type, and management practices.

Meteorological data, including minimum and maximum temperatures, precipitation, relative humidity, solar radiation, and wind speed, were collected from the Iran Meteorological Organization. Additionally, agricultural management data related to planting seasons, irrigation, fertilizer and pesticide use, and tillage practices were obtained from the Comprehensive Water Updating Research of Iran. These comprehensive settings enable the SWAT model to effectively simulate hydrological processes over the long term.

Crop yield and runoff calibration were conducted utilizing regional crop yield data sourced from the Ministry of Agriculture, along with data from hydrometric stations provided by the Iran Water Resources Management Company. The model was implemented for the period from 2000 to 2018, with the initial 3 years (2000–2003) designated for model warm-up. Sensitivity analysis and calibration of the SWAT model were performed using the SWAT-CUP tool to ensure the reliability of outputs for subsequent analyses.

Aquifer quantity–quality simulation by MODFLOW and MT3DMS

MODFLOW is a comprehensive numerical model developed by the United States Geological Survey (USGS) for simulating groundwater flow (McDonald & Harbaugh 2003). In this study, the MODFLOW model was integrated with the SWAT outputs to provide an accurate representation of groundwater systems in the Eshtehard plain. This model employs the finite difference method for three-dimensional simulation of groundwater flows in steady and transient states and incorporates Darcy's law to manage mass balance in simulating subsurface flows (Akbari et al. 2022). The aquifer was developed using ground-level point layers, bedrock, and initial water levels obtained through inverse distance weighting (IDW) interpolation. The model was assumed to be uniform and divided into 600 cells. Percolation data from the SWAT model were applied for simulating water movement within the aquifer.

To meet agricultural demands, the model considered 126 extraction wells and 14 observation wells in the Eshtehard plain. Steady-state calibration was focused on hydraulic conductivity and aquifer recharge parameters for October 2010. The calibration process included extracting 20 acceptable solution sets with a Nash–Sutcliffe (NS) coefficient above 0.7, providing a robust framework for groundwater management. Once the groundwater flow model was developed, the MT3DMS model was utilized to simulate nitrate transport as a qualitative parameter. This model is a powerful three-dimensional numerical tool for simulating the transport of dissolved materials under various hydrological conditions and allows for the investigation of complex interactions between multiple contaminants (Zheng et al. 2012; Ehtiat et al. 2018). Utilizing data from the SWAT outputs and integrating land-use maps and sub-basin shape files, the model accurately represents initial nitrate concentrations in 19 observation wells, facilitating comprehensive groundwater quality analysis. In Table 1, the key variables and data sources for modeling processes are presented.

Table 1

Key variables and data sources for model calibration and validation, including crop yield, runoff, and hydrometric data

VariableDescriptionSource
Soil type Types of soils in the Eshtehard plain Ministry of Agriculture, Global Soil Map 
Meteorological data Temperature, precipitation, humidity, etc. Iran Meteorological Organization 
Land use data Agricultural and non-agricultural land uses Ministry of Agriculture 
Agricultural management data Planting methods, irrigation, and fertilizer usage Comprehensive Water Updating Research of Iran 
Nitrate concentration Initial nitrate concentrations in observation wells SWAT model outputs 
Groundwater level Hydraulic parameters for calibration Hydrometric stations, Iran Water Resources Management Company 
VariableDescriptionSource
Soil type Types of soils in the Eshtehard plain Ministry of Agriculture, Global Soil Map 
Meteorological data Temperature, precipitation, humidity, etc. Iran Meteorological Organization 
Land use data Agricultural and non-agricultural land uses Ministry of Agriculture 
Agricultural management data Planting methods, irrigation, and fertilizer usage Comprehensive Water Updating Research of Iran 
Nitrate concentration Initial nitrate concentrations in observation wells SWAT model outputs 
Groundwater level Hydraulic parameters for calibration Hydrometric stations, Iran Water Resources Management Company 

Optimization

An optimization algorithm seeks to find the optimal values for decision variables. Optimal values are obtained by minimizing or maximizing objective functions with predefined constraints. Classical optimization algorithms are time-consuming and ineffective in solving complex problems. In this study, the GA is adopted using entropy theory for the optimal design of the monitoring network.

In a monitoring problem, the collected dataset grows as the number of observational wells increases. However, the shared data of wells would increase, despite an expensive process. Therefore, there is a trade-off between unique data and shared (repetitive) data in the system as the number of wells increases (Alfonso et al. 2012). Such a trade-off provides decision-makers with good insights into the transfer of data, repetitive and unnecessary data, and the optimal number of monitoring wells.

To examine the relationships between the different well datasets, we utilize Shannon's entropy theory. In this approach, entropy represents the degree of uncertainty in the distribution of the data, while joint correlation calculates the amount of shared information between the wells.

Probability and entropy calculation

The probability of a specific nitrate value in each well is calculated by dividing the number of occurrences of that specific value by the total number of observations. For instance, Table 2 shows the nitrate values for three wells over 12 months:

Table 2

Nitrate concentration data and associated probabilities for three example wells

Variables
Transformed variables
Probabilities
X (well 1)Y (well 2)Z (well 3)Xt (well 1)Yt (well 2)Zt (well 3)P(Xt)P(Yt)Z(Xt)
37.2 11.4 37.2 37 11 37 0.83 0.17 0.25 
37.2 11.7 37.3 37 11 37    
37.1 12.2 37.5 37 12 37  0.17  
37.1 12.7 38.1 37 12 38   0.33 
37.1 12.98 38.54 37 13 38  0.42  
37.1 13.2 38.77 37 13 38    
37 13.4 38.89 37 13 38    
37 13.75 39.2 37 13 39   0.25 
37 13.88 39.4 37 13 39    
37 14.35 39.76 37 14 39  0.25  
36.9 14.78 40.4 36 14 40 0.17  0.17 
36.9 14.86 40.7 36 14 40    
Variables
Transformed variables
Probabilities
X (well 1)Y (well 2)Z (well 3)Xt (well 1)Yt (well 2)Zt (well 3)P(Xt)P(Yt)Z(Xt)
37.2 11.4 37.2 37 11 37 0.83 0.17 0.25 
37.2 11.7 37.3 37 11 37    
37.1 12.2 37.5 37 12 37  0.17  
37.1 12.7 38.1 37 12 38   0.33 
37.1 12.98 38.54 37 13 38  0.42  
37.1 13.2 38.77 37 13 38    
37 13.4 38.89 37 13 38    
37 13.75 39.2 37 13 39   0.25 
37 13.88 39.4 37 13 39    
37 14.35 39.76 37 14 39  0.25  
36.9 14.78 40.4 36 14 40 0.17  0.17 
36.9 14.86 40.7 36 14 40    

The entropy of each well is calculated using Shannon's formula:
(1)
The calculations for each well are as follows:
where H represents entropy, P refers to the probability distribution, and X, Y, and Z are the data of the respective wells.

Joint correlation calculation

The joint correlation between wells is calculated as the sum of individual entropies minus the total joint entropy. The joint entropy is computed by combining the values in the following manner:

  • 1. Combining values of wells 1 and 2:
    (2)
  • 2. Joint entropy for wells 1 and 2:
    (3)
  • 3. Combining with well 3:
    (4)
  • 4. The total joint entropy H(X, Y, Z) is then computed.

Finally, the joint correlation is calculated using the following relationship:
(5)
For example,

This result indicates that there are 1.09 units of shared information among the three wells, suggesting a dependency among the well datasets (Alfonso et al. 2012). I(X, Y, Z) denotes the joint correlation between the wells, H is the entropy of a well, and P is the probability distribution of the well data. The terms A and B are intermediate combinations of the well values used to calculate the joint entropy.

Objective functions

In this context, the objective functions are defined as follows:

  • - Minimizing overall correlation:
    (6)
  • - Maximizing joint entropy:
    (7)

where represent the data of the wells in the system, P denotes the probability distribution, H is the entropy, and refer to the individual values of the wells.

The problem can be solved as a multi-objective optimization problem, the output of which is a set of quasi-optimal non-dominated solutions representing a Pareto front. The Pareto front describes the decision-making outcome and indicates how the improvement of one criterion worsens other criteria. In this regard, optimization refers to finding a trade-off between the objectives. The multi-objective genetic algorithm (MOGA) is an efficient multi-objective optimization algorithm as it searches the point space in parallel rather than searching for single points and does not require auxiliary information, e.g., differentiation. The MOGA model was used in this study to implement optimization and entropy theory. NSGA-II is a MOGA model that benefits from simulated binary crossover (SBN) and polynomial mutation. The SBN operation consists of the weighted average calculation of parents, allowing for the use of single-point binary-coded crossover in problems with real codes.

SWAT calibration and validation

The runoff for the Asefoddoleh station is calibrated and validated using the SWAT-CUP model on a monthly basis for 2004–2015 and 2016–2018 periods, respectively. After the calibration process, the calibrated parameters for water yield and aquifer recharge are shown in Table 3. Once the sensitivity analysis is completed, the flow and aquifer recharge determinants are identified. The calibrated water yield and aquifer recharge parameters are obtained for the Asefoddoleh station with the calibration coefficient of determination (R2) and NS of 0.85 and 0.81, respectively. For validation, however, R2 and NS are calculated 0.78 and 0.76, respectively. Figure 4 shows the discharge at the Asefoddoleh hydrometric station for simulated vs. observed data.
Table 3

Calibrated SWAT parameters for runoff simulation

ParameterDefinitionInitial rangeFinal value
Subsurface water response 
 ALPHA_BF.gw Baseflow alpha factor (days) 0–1 0.11 
 GW_DELAY.gw Groundwater delay (days) 0–500 31 
 GWQMN.gw Threshold depth of water in the shallow aquifer required for return flow to occur (mm) 0–5,000 4,560 
 GW_REVAP.gw Groundwater ‘revap’ coefficient 0.02–0.2 0.13 
 REVAPMN.gw Threshold depth of water in the shallow aquifer for ‘revap’ to occur (mm) 0–500 166.66 
 RCHRG_DP.gw Deep aquifer percolation fraction 0–1 0.63 
Surface water response 
 CN2.mgt SCS runoff curve number 35–98 87 
 CH_K2.rte Effective hydraulic conductivity in main channel alluvium soil properties −0.1–500 2.65 
 SOL_AWC.sol Available water capacity of the soil layer 0–1 0.18 
 SOL_K.sol Saturated hydraulic conductivity 0–2,000 
 SOL_BD.sol Moist bulk density 0.9–2.5 0.9 
 SOL_ALB.sol Moist soil albedo 0–0.25 
ParameterDefinitionInitial rangeFinal value
Subsurface water response 
 ALPHA_BF.gw Baseflow alpha factor (days) 0–1 0.11 
 GW_DELAY.gw Groundwater delay (days) 0–500 31 
 GWQMN.gw Threshold depth of water in the shallow aquifer required for return flow to occur (mm) 0–5,000 4,560 
 GW_REVAP.gw Groundwater ‘revap’ coefficient 0.02–0.2 0.13 
 REVAPMN.gw Threshold depth of water in the shallow aquifer for ‘revap’ to occur (mm) 0–500 166.66 
 RCHRG_DP.gw Deep aquifer percolation fraction 0–1 0.63 
Surface water response 
 CN2.mgt SCS runoff curve number 35–98 87 
 CH_K2.rte Effective hydraulic conductivity in main channel alluvium soil properties −0.1–500 2.65 
 SOL_AWC.sol Available water capacity of the soil layer 0–1 0.18 
 SOL_K.sol Saturated hydraulic conductivity 0–2,000 
 SOL_BD.sol Moist bulk density 0.9–2.5 0.9 
 SOL_ALB.sol Moist soil albedo 0–0.25 
Figure 4

Simulated vs. observed discharge at the Asefoddoleh hydrometric station.

Figure 4

Simulated vs. observed discharge at the Asefoddoleh hydrometric station.

Close modal
The data on wheat, barley, and cotton yields in 2011, 2012, and 2013 were available in the reports of the Ministry of Agriculture. Based on the limited observed data, the average annual crop yields were employed for SWAT crop yield calibration. The SWAT model was executed for the 2011–2018 period, extracting and comparing the crop yields to the average observed crop yield data. Hence, the parameters affecting crop yields were identified. The calibrated parameters of SWAT for simulating crop yield are presented in Table 4. Furthermore, the average data for the period of 2004–2010 was used as the validation data. In Figure 5, the observed annual crop yield is compared with the model outputs in two calibration and validation phases.
Table 4

Calibrated SWAT parameters for crop yield simulation

ParameterDefinitionFinal value
Plant managementInitial rangeWWHTWBARCOTP
WAVP Rate of decline in radiation use efficiency per unit increase in vapor pressure deficit 0–50 20.975 40.275 47.575 
ALAI_MIN Minimum leaf area index for plant during the dormant period 0–0.99 0.406 0.661 
EXT_COEF Light extinction coefficient 0–2 1.541 0.043 1.685 
FRGRW1 Fraction of the plant growing season corresponding to the first. The point on the optimal leaf area development curve 0–1 0.684 0.499 0.567 
BIO_E Biomass/Energy ratio 10–90 89 81.64 79.4 
BLAI Max leaf area index 0.5–10 9.368 2.053 6.917 
HVSTI Harvest index 0.01–1.25 0.084 0.266 0.178 
LAIMX1 Fraction of the max. Leaf area index corresponding to the first. The point on the optimal leaf area development curve 0–1 0.322 0.404 0.332 
LAIMX2 Fraction of the max. Leaf area index corresponding to the second. The point on the optimal leaf area development curve 0–1 0.017 0.009 0.447 
DLAI The fraction of growing season when leaf area starts declining 0.15–1 0.853 0.232 0.22 
T_OPT Optimal temp for plant growth 11–38 13.552 33.828 26.863 
T_BASE Min temp plant growth 0–18 2.961 1.251 0.801 
ParameterDefinitionFinal value
Plant managementInitial rangeWWHTWBARCOTP
WAVP Rate of decline in radiation use efficiency per unit increase in vapor pressure deficit 0–50 20.975 40.275 47.575 
ALAI_MIN Minimum leaf area index for plant during the dormant period 0–0.99 0.406 0.661 
EXT_COEF Light extinction coefficient 0–2 1.541 0.043 1.685 
FRGRW1 Fraction of the plant growing season corresponding to the first. The point on the optimal leaf area development curve 0–1 0.684 0.499 0.567 
BIO_E Biomass/Energy ratio 10–90 89 81.64 79.4 
BLAI Max leaf area index 0.5–10 9.368 2.053 6.917 
HVSTI Harvest index 0.01–1.25 0.084 0.266 0.178 
LAIMX1 Fraction of the max. Leaf area index corresponding to the first. The point on the optimal leaf area development curve 0–1 0.322 0.404 0.332 
LAIMX2 Fraction of the max. Leaf area index corresponding to the second. The point on the optimal leaf area development curve 0–1 0.017 0.009 0.447 
DLAI The fraction of growing season when leaf area starts declining 0.15–1 0.853 0.232 0.22 
T_OPT Optimal temp for plant growth 11–38 13.552 33.828 26.863 
T_BASE Min temp plant growth 0–18 2.961 1.251 0.801 
Figure 5

Comparison of simulated and observed average crop yield (ton/ha).

Figure 5

Comparison of simulated and observed average crop yield (ton/ha).

Close modal

MODFLOW and MT3DMS calibration

For the steady-state calibration, piezometric well data observed in October 2010 were utilized over a one-month steady period. Calibration techniques have been categorized into manual and automatic methods. To assess variations in hydraulic conductivity, an automatic approximate regional variation range was initially defined (Stefania et al. 2018). The best possible hydraulic conductivity coefficients were then obtained using PEST (Doherty & Hunt 2010). Final calibration was performed manually through a trial-and-error approach. Figure 6 illustrates the calibrated hydraulic conductivity (m/day). Additionally, Figure 7 shows the discrepancy between observed and simulated groundwater levels for the calibrated steady state.
Figure 6

Calibrated hydraulic conductivity values for aquifer in the steady-state condition.

Figure 6

Calibrated hydraulic conductivity values for aquifer in the steady-state condition.

Close modal
Figure 7

Comparison of simulated and observed water levels in piezometers in the steady-state condition.

Figure 7

Comparison of simulated and observed water levels in piezometers in the steady-state condition.

Close modal

The unsteady model was calibrated on a monthly basis for 8 years from October 2010 to September 2018. In the unsteady model calibration, the surface aquifer recharge was extracted from the calibrated SWAT model and introduced to MODFLOW, calibrating the specific yield of the aquifer. The root mean square error (RMSE) and the NS coefficient of the steady quantitative model were reported as 0.45 and 0.99, respectively. However, the RMSE and NS of the unsteady model were calculated 0.75 and 0.81, respectively. Overall, the obtained results of SWAT-MOFDLOW showed that the proposed model performs well for the watershed simulation.

To implement the MT3DMS model, the nitrate data measured in the 19 recording wells by the National Water Resources Management Company within 2010–2012 were used. The nitrate recharge rates were obtained from the SWAT output in the form of cell data. The nitrate output by the MT3DMS model from October 2010 to September 2018 was used as the input to the optimization routine. The longitudinal dispersion coefficient and initial porosity were set to 35 m and 0.3, respectively, in the qualitative simulation model. The qualitative model was assumed to have no contamination. The region has municipal and livestock husbandry wastewater disposal. In Figure 8, simulated vs. observed nitrate concentrations in the first month of computation are presented.
Figure 8

Comparison of the simulated and observed nitrate concentration.

Figure 8

Comparison of the simulated and observed nitrate concentration.

Close modal

Optimization results

In the basic state, a 3D reactive transport model was executed with MT3DMS, simulating the rate and transport of nitrate in the aquifer over an 8-year period from October 2010 to September 2018. The model was run without any pollution entering the aquifer, and the results were used to calculate nitrate values in 19 wells on a monthly basis. This provided a baseline to compare against when evaluating the impact of pollutant sources entering the aquifer. The optimization with two objective functions of the entropy theory was performed in MATLAB. To adjust the GA parameters, the model was executed with different parameters' values and the suitable values reported in Table 5 were selected.

Table 5

Selected values for GA parameters

ParameterValue
Maximum iteration number 800 
Population size of genetic algorithm 150 
Stopping criteria function tolerance 1.00E-14 
Number of variables 19 
ParameterValue
Maximum iteration number 800 
Population size of genetic algorithm 150 
Stopping criteria function tolerance 1.00E-14 
Number of variables 19 

The Pareto front with 70 optimal solutions was derived after 124 iterations. Figure 9 demonstrates the optimal solutions for the groundwater monitoring network based on the GA outputs. The selected wells are highlighted in green, whereas the excluded wells are highlighted in red. Also, Figure 10 presents the Pareto front of the proposed optimization model. The best solution in the Pareto front is the one closest to the ideal solution. It is referred to as the compromise solution. The closeness of the ideal point to other points in the search space (points leading to a compromise solution) has various definitions. The compromise solution in the search space of a MOOP is typically defined as the solution with the minimum Euclidean distance from the ideal solution. Therefore, point 1 in the Pareto front in Figure 10 represents the best solution.
Figure 9

Optimal groundwater monitoring network obtained by GA.

Figure 9

Optimal groundwater monitoring network obtained by GA.

Close modal
Figure 10

Pareto front and selection of the optimal solution for the monitoring network design problem.

Figure 10

Pareto front and selection of the optimal solution for the monitoring network design problem.

Close modal
Eventually, Figure 11 demonstrates the optimal well locations for the best solution for the groundwater monitoring network in the Eshtehard plain. Seven out of the 19 wells measuring nitrate content are found to be the optimal locations, through which sufficient data can be obtained for groundwater monitoring in a shorter time and lower costs (assuming identical conditions for the wells).
Figure 11

Optimal well locations for monitoring network obtained by GA.

Figure 11

Optimal well locations for monitoring network obtained by GA.

Close modal
The Kriging method was employed to interpolate the results. Using the nitrate concentration in the optimum designed network, the nitrate content in the excluded wells was interpolated. The error was calculated by comparing the observed and the interpolated nitrate concentrations. The RMSE for the best solution was found to be 11.43 mg/L. The RMSE was 13.17, 12.27, and 10.7 mg/L for solutions No. 2, 3, and 4, respectively. In other words, the optimum network implemented nitrate content interpolation by use of 7 wells data, whereas solutions No. 2, 3, and 4 involved 7, 9, and 11 wells, respectively. Hence, solution No. 1 has a lower error with a lower number of wells, leading to much lower operational cost, as fewer wells in the network result in lower costs for sampling, transportation, laboratory, and data analysis of qualitative parameters. Therefore, the network with seven wells located in the plain is the optimum network for groundwater monitoring in the Eshtehard plain. Additionally, in Figure 12, the locations of the optimal monitoring stations for solutions 2, 3, and 4 from the Pareto front are presented, which consist of 7, 9, and 11 selected optimal stations, respectively.
Figure 12

Location of the monitoring wells in the presence of the point source pollution.

Figure 12

Location of the monitoring wells in the presence of the point source pollution.

Close modal
As part of a hypothetical test to further evaluate the effectiveness of the optimal monitoring network selected by the proposed model, we introduced a nitrate contamination scenario. Specifically, an input of nitrate pollution with a concentration of 80 mg/L was simulated within the cell representing Eshtehard city in the model. The resulting nitrate distribution across the aquifer was simulated using the MT3D model, with the spatial extent and concentration of nitrate illustrated in Figure 13. Subsequently, optimization was applied to determine the optimal locations for monitoring wells in response to this contamination scenario, as depicted in Figure 14. Following 800 iterations, the optimization process yielded a Pareto front consisting of 53 optimal solutions, as presented in Figure 15. This approach demonstrates the robustness of the model in adapting the monitoring network to potential contamination events, supporting proactive groundwater quality management.
Figure 13

Nitrate concentration in the Eshtehard aquifer caused by point source pollution.

Figure 13

Nitrate concentration in the Eshtehard aquifer caused by point source pollution.

Close modal
Figure 14

Location of the monitoring wells in the presence of the point source pollution.

Figure 14

Location of the monitoring wells in the presence of the point source pollution.

Close modal
Figure 15

Pareto front for the optimal monitoring network in the presence of the point source pollution.

Figure 15

Pareto front for the optimal monitoring network in the presence of the point source pollution.

Close modal
For additional validation of the optimization model results, the fuzzy C-means (FCM) clustering technique was applied, selecting seven clusters based on multiple criteria. This choice was informed by the data characteristics, which indicated that grouping the monitoring stations into seven clusters would provide a meaningful classification that reflects both nitrogen concentration levels and spatial distribution patterns. Silhouette analysis supported this decision, demonstrating that seven clusters achieved the highest intra-cluster cohesion and inter-cluster separation. Furthermore, the elbow point observed in the plot of the total within-cluster sum of squares against the number of clusters highlighted that beyond seven clusters, clustering efficiency diminished. For each cluster, wells located nearest to the cluster centers were identified as optimal monitoring locations per the FCM approach. Figure 16 illustrates the cluster centers derived by FCM, and Figure 17 shows the well placements designated as optimal based on this fuzzy clustering analysis.
Figure 16

Cluster centers obtained using the fuzzy clustering method.

Figure 16

Cluster centers obtained using the fuzzy clustering method.

Close modal
Figure 17

Location of the monitoring wells determined by the fuzzy clustering method.

Figure 17

Location of the monitoring wells determined by the fuzzy clustering method.

Close modal

The FCM and GA model results were compared using the joint entropy of the selected wells. The joint entropy of the wells selected by FCM was reported 1.52, whereas that of the wells selected by GA was found equal to 1.92 and 3.25 without and with nitrate point source pollution, respectively. Therefore, the FCM model resulted in a lower joint entropy value and thus, represented a lower significance level comparing the GA model results.

In the design of groundwater monitoring networks, a homogeneous distribution of wells is often implemented. However, such an approach would not necessarily lead to an optimal monitoring well distribution due to excessive or insufficient data in the network. Hence, optimization is an effective approach to the design of groundwater monitoring networks. This paper aimed to develop an optimal groundwater monitoring network design based on the current monitoring network. For this purpose, a hydrological model was developed in SWAT. Once the SWAT runoff and crop yield had been calibrated, percolation and nitrate inflow outputs of the SWAT model were used as input to the groundwater simulation model. In fact, a quantitative groundwater simulation was conducted in MODFLOW, whereas qualitative groundwater simulations were performed through MT3DMS. The output nitrate data of the MT2DMS model from October 2010 to September 2018 were employed to optimize the groundwater monitoring network. The optimized monitoring network would have fewer nitrate monitoring wells and, therefore, lower costs. It is notable, excluding some wells, based on optimization models from the monitoring network is temporary, because some areas may become critical in terms of groundwater quality in future and would require more wells. As for an assumed nitrate recharge across a given area, the optimal combination of the wells differed from the combination corresponding to the scenario of no nitrate entrance. All in all, it is suggested groundwater monitoring network should be redesigned periodically (every few years) based on quality measures. It is worth noting that monitoring wells were selected among the existing wells. New locations, especially in areas where there is no monitoring well, can be considered as potential points of monitoring in order to obtain better coverage for the whole aquifer.

In the presented detailed analysis, the outcomes of the GA were compared with other methods used for optimizing the number of monitoring wells. Each method yielded different optimal well configurations, reflecting the unique criteria and algorithms utilized.

Genetic Algorithm (GA): The GA approach identified seven optimal well locations, which provided the best balance between operational costs and the effectiveness of groundwater monitoring. This method effectively minimized the RMSE to 11.43 mg/L, demonstrating its efficiency in achieving accurate predictions with fewer wells.

Other methods: In contrast, the alternative methods, while potentially offering more data points, resulted in higher RMSE values of 13.17, 12.27, and 10.7 mg/L for solutions 2, 3, and 4, respectively. These methods required a larger number of wells (9 and 11) leading to increased operational costs without significant improvements in the accuracy of the results.

Comparative evaluation: The comparative analysis highlights that the GA method, despite having fewer wells, maintains a high level of accuracy, making it the most cost-effective option for groundwater monitoring in the Eshtehard plain. The results suggest that utilizing the optimal number of wells can lead to substantial savings in sampling, transportation, laboratory analysis, and data interpretation.

No funds, grants, or other support were received.

All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation, data collection, and analysis were performed by H. Farshad. The first draft of the manuscript was written by H. Farshad and edited by M. Javan Salehi and M. Shourian. M. Shourian read and approved the final manuscript.

All relevant data are included in the paper or its Supplementary Information.

The authors declare there is no conflict.

Akbarzadeh
M.
,
Ghahraman
B.
&
Davary
K.
(
2016
)
Evaluation of groundwater quality in Mashhad aquifer using the indicator kriging based on nitrate pollution
,
Iranian Journal of Irrigation and Drainage
,
10
,
1
.
Alfonso
L.
,
He
L.
,
Lobbrecht
A.
&
Price
R.
(
2012
)
Information theory applied to evaluate the discharge monitoring network of the Magdalena River
,
Journal of Hydroinformatics
,
15
(
1
),
211
228
.
Aliyari
F.
,
Bailey
R. T.
,
Tasdighi
A.
,
Dozier
A.
,
Arabi
M.
&
Zeiler
K.
(
2019
)
Coupled SWAT-MODFLOW model for large-scale mixed agro-urban river basins
,
Environmental Modelling & Software
,
115
,
200
210
.
Bashi-Azghadi
S. N.
&
Kerachian
R.
(
2010
)
Locating monitoring wells in groundwater systems using embedded optimization and simulation models
,
Science of the Total Environment
,
408
(
10
),
2189
2198
.
Doherty
J. E.
&
Hunt
R. J.
(
2010
)
Approaches to Highly Parameterized Inversion: A Guide to Using PEST for Groundwater-Model Calibration
,
Vol. 2010
.
Wisconsin
:
US Department of the Interior, US Geological Survey Reston
.
McDonald
M. G.
&
Harbaugh
A. W.
(
2003
)
The history of MODFLOW
,
Ground Water
,
41
(
2
),
280
.
Ning
S.-K.
&
Chang
N.-B.
(
2005
)
Screening the relocation strategies of water quality monitoring stations by compromise programming
,
JAWRA Journal of the American Water Resources Association
,
41
(
5
),
1039
1052
.
Shafiei
M.
,
Ghahraman
B.
&
Saghafian
B.
(
2013
)
Evaluation and optimization of raingauge network based on probability kriging (Case study: Gorgan-Rud watershed)
,
Iran-Water Resources Research
,
9
,
2
.
Stefania
G. A.
,
Rotiroti
M.
,
Fumagalli
L.
,
Simonetto
F.
,
Capodaglio
P.
,
Zanotti
C.
&
Bonomi
T.
(
2018
)
Modeling groundwater/surface-water interactions in an Alpine valley (the Aosta Plain, NW Italy): the effect of groundwater abstraction on surface-water resources
,
Hydrogeology Journal
,
26
(
1
),
147
162
.
Wu
J.
,
Zheng
C.
&
Chien
C. C.
(
2005
)
Cost-effective sampling network design for contaminant plume monitoring under general hydrogeological conditions
,
Journal of Contaminant Hydrology
,
77
(
1
),
41
65
.
Zheng
C.
,
Hill
M.
,
Cao
G.
&
Ma
R.
(
2012
)
MT3DMS: model use, calibration, and validation
,
Transactions of the ASABE
,
55
(
4
),
1549
1559
.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence (CC BY 4.0), which permits copying, adaptation and redistribution, provided the original work is properly cited (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).