To be or not to be multi-Gaussian? A reflection on stochastic hydrogeology

Abstract

The multivariate Gaussian random function model is commonly used in stochastic hydrogeology to model spatial variability of log-conductivity. The multi-Gaussian model is attractive because it is fully characterized by an expected value and a covariance function or matrix, hence its mathematical simplicity and easy inference. Field data may support a Gaussian univariate distribution for log hydraulic conductivity, but, in general, there are not enough field data to support a multi-Gaussian distribution. A univariate Gaussian distribution does not imply a multi-Gaussian model. In fact, many multivariate models can share the same Gaussian histogram and covariance function, yet differ by their patterns of spatial continuity at different threshold values. Hence the decision to use a multi-Gaussian model to represent the uncertainty associated with the spatial heterogeneity of log-conductivity is not databased. Of greatest concern is the fact that a multi-Gaussian model implies the minimal spatial correlation of extreme values, a feature critical for mass transport and a feature that may be in contradiction with some geological settings, e.g. channeling. The possibility for high conductivity values to be spatially correlated should not be discarded by adopting a congenial model just because data shortage prevents refuting it. In this study, three alternatives to a multi-Gaussian model, all sharing the same Gaussian histogram and the same covariance function, but with different continuity patterns for extreme values, were considered to model the spatial variability of log-conductivity. The three alternative models, plus the traditional multi-Gaussian model, are used to perform Monte Carlo analyses of groundwater travel times from a hypothetical nuclear repository to the ground surface through a synthetic formation similar to the Finnsjön site in Sweden. The results show that the groundwater travel times predicted by the multi-Gaussian model could be ten times slower than those predicted by the other models. The probabilities of very short travel times could be severely underestimated using the multi-Gaussian model. Consequently, if field measured data are not sufficient to determine the higher-order moments necessary to validate the multi-Gaussian model — which is the usual situation in practice — other alternative models to the multi-Gaussian one ought to be considered.