{"title":"Evaluating the chain of uncertainties in the 3D geological modelling workflow","authors":"A.S. Høyer, P.B.E. Sandersen, L.T. Andersen, R.B. Madsen, M.H. Mortensen, I. Møller","doi":"10.1016/j.enggeo.2024.107792","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Geological models are used for a range of applications relevant for engineering geology and the demands for reliable geological models with realistic uncertainty assessments are therefore increasing. The geological modelling workflow is divided into multiple steps, each associated with uncertainties. Often however, many of these sources of uncertainty are overlooked, which may lead to an underestimation of the uncertainties of the final model. The main reason is that most of the steps in the geological modelling workflow are subjective to some degree. Thus, the possible sources of uncertainty in geological modelling are theoretically infinite, and without a trustworthy conceptual model to outline the expected geological structures and lithologies, the uncertainty assessment of the resulting model will likewise be unreliable. In this paper, we describe the chain of uncertainties in the geological modelling workflow and showcase some of the most important sources of uncertainties through practical modelling examples from two different model areas. The paper also presents and discuss a method to conduct qualitative uncertainty assessment, which is conducted by the modeler and based on expert evaluation and prioritization of the different sources of uncertainty. The practical use of the uncertainty assessment method is exemplified in the last two examples, representing a local-scale and a large-scale model, respectively. All four examples are from Danish geological models that have been constructed as interpretation-based layer-models. However, the considerations regarding the uncertainties in the chain of the geological modelling workflow are useful regardless of the modelling method.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":11567,"journal":{"name":"Engineering Geology","volume":"343 ","pages":"Article 107792"},"PeriodicalIF":6.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Engineering Geology","FirstCategoryId":"89","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0013795224003922","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, GEOLOGICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Geological models are used for a range of applications relevant for engineering geology and the demands for reliable geological models with realistic uncertainty assessments are therefore increasing. The geological modelling workflow is divided into multiple steps, each associated with uncertainties. Often however, many of these sources of uncertainty are overlooked, which may lead to an underestimation of the uncertainties of the final model. The main reason is that most of the steps in the geological modelling workflow are subjective to some degree. Thus, the possible sources of uncertainty in geological modelling are theoretically infinite, and without a trustworthy conceptual model to outline the expected geological structures and lithologies, the uncertainty assessment of the resulting model will likewise be unreliable. In this paper, we describe the chain of uncertainties in the geological modelling workflow and showcase some of the most important sources of uncertainties through practical modelling examples from two different model areas. The paper also presents and discuss a method to conduct qualitative uncertainty assessment, which is conducted by the modeler and based on expert evaluation and prioritization of the different sources of uncertainty. The practical use of the uncertainty assessment method is exemplified in the last two examples, representing a local-scale and a large-scale model, respectively. All four examples are from Danish geological models that have been constructed as interpretation-based layer-models. However, the considerations regarding the uncertainties in the chain of the geological modelling workflow are useful regardless of the modelling method.
期刊介绍:
Engineering Geology, an international interdisciplinary journal, serves as a bridge between earth sciences and engineering, focusing on geological and geotechnical engineering. It welcomes studies with relevance to engineering, environmental concerns, and safety, catering to engineering geologists with backgrounds in geology or civil/mining engineering. Topics include applied geomorphology, structural geology, geophysics, geochemistry, environmental geology, hydrogeology, land use planning, natural hazards, remote sensing, soil and rock mechanics, and applied geotechnical engineering. The journal provides a platform for research at the intersection of geology and engineering disciplines.