Checking for non-preferred file/folder path names (may take a long time depending on the number of files/folders) ...

GroMoPo Metadata for Egebjerg voxel model


Authors:
Owners: This resource does not have an owner who is an active HydroShare user. Contact CUAHSI (help@cuahsi.org) for information on this resource.
Type: Resource
Storage: The size of this resource is 1.6 KB
Created: Feb 08, 2023 at 8:32 p.m.
Last updated: Feb 08, 2023 at 8:32 p.m.
Citation: See how to cite this resource
Sharing Status: Public
Views: 259
Downloads: 187
+1 Votes: Be the first one to 
 this.
Comments: No comments (yet)

Abstract

Reliable groundwater model predictions are dependent on representative models of the geological environment, which can be modelled using several different techniques. In order to inform the choice of the geological modelling technique, the differences between a layer modelling approach and a voxel modelling approach were analyzed. The layer model consists of stratigraphically ordered surfaces, while the voxel model consists of a structured mesh of volumetric pixels. Groundwater models based on the two models were developed to investigate their impact on groundwater model predictions. The study was conducted in the relatively data-dense area Egebjerg, Denmark, where both a layer model and a voxel model have been developed based on the same data and geological conceptualization. The characteristics of the two methodologies for developing the geological models were shown to have a direct impact on the resulting models. The differences between the layer and the voxel models were, however, shown to be diverse and not related to larger conceptual elements, with few exceptions. The analysis showed that the geological modelling approaches had an influence on preferred parameter values and thereby groundwater model predictions of hydraulic head, groundwater budget terms and particle tracking results. A significance test taking into account the predictive distributions showed, that for many predictions, the differences between the models were significant. The results suggest that the geological modelling strategy has an influence on groundwater model predictions even if based on the same geological conceptualization.

Subject Keywords

Coverage

Spatial

Coordinate System/Geographic Projection:
WGS 84 EPSG:4326
Coordinate Units:
Decimal degrees
Place/Area Name:
Denmark
North Latitude
55.9239°
East Longitude
9.9541°
South Latitude
55.8557°
West Longitude
9.8353°

Content

Additional Metadata

Name Value
DOI 10.1007/s10040-021-02442-9
Depth
Scale 101 - 1 000 km²
Layers
Purpose Scientific investigation (not related to applied problem)
GroMoPo_ID 416
IsVerified True
Model Code Unknown
Model Link https://doi.org/10.1007/s10040-021-02442-9
Model Time
Model Year 2022
Model Authors Enemark, T; Andersen, LT; Hoyer, AS; Jensen, KH; Kidmose, J; Sandersen, PBE; Sonnenborg, TO
Model Country Denmark
Data Available Report/paper only
Developer Email khj@ign.ku.dk
Dominant Geology Model focuses on multiple geologic materials
Developer Country Denmark
Publication Title The influence of layer and voxel geological modelling strategy on groundwater modelling results
Original Developer No
Additional Information Comparison of modeling concepts based on layers and voxels
Integration or Coupling
Evaluation or Calibration Unsure
Geologic Data Availability No

How to Cite

GroMoPo, D. Kretschmer (2023). GroMoPo Metadata for Egebjerg voxel model, HydroShare, http://www.hydroshare.org/resource/70f40def6f774eeaa8d69432cb27e34b

This resource is shared under the Creative Commons Attribution CC BY.

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
CC-BY

Comments

There are currently no comments

New Comment

required