Preprints
https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2023-74
https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2023-74
24 May 2023
 | 24 May 2023
Status: a revised version of this preprint was accepted for the journal HESS and is expected to appear here in due course.

Incorporating interpretation uncertainties from deterministic 3D hydrostratigraphic models in groundwater models

Trine Enemark, Rasmus Bødker Madsen, Torben O. Sonnenborg, Lærke Therese Andersen, Peter B. E. Sandersen, Jacob Kidmose, Ingelise Møller, Thomas Mejer Hansen, Karsten Høgh Jensen, and Anne-Sophie Høyer

Abstract. Many 3D hydrostratigraphic models of the subsurface are interpreted as deterministic models, where an experienced modeler combines relevant geophysical and geological information with background geological knowledge. Depending on the quality of the information from the input data, the interpretation phase will typically be accompanied by an estimated qualitative interpretation uncertainty. Given the qualitative and subjective nature of uncertainty, it is difficult to propagate the uncertainty to groundwater models. In this study, a stochastic simulation-based methodology to characterize interpretation uncertainty within a manual interpretation-based layer model is applied in a groundwater modeling setting. Three levels of interpretation uncertainty scenarios are generated and three locations in the models representing different geological structures are analyzed. The impact of interpretation uncertainty on predictions of capture zone area and median travel time is compared to the impact of uncertainty on parameters in the groundwater model. The main result is that in areas with thick and large aquifers and low geological uncertainty, the impact of interpretation uncertainty is negligible compared to the hydrogeological parameterization, while it may introduce a significant contribution in areas with thinner and smaller aquifers with high geologic uncertainty. The influence of the interpretation uncertainties is thus dependent on the geological setting as well as the confidence of the interpreter. In areas with thick aquifers, this study confirms existing evidence that if the conceptual model is well-defined, interpretation uncertainties within the conceptual model have limited impact on groundwater model predictions.

Trine Enemark et al.

Status: closed

Comment types: AC – author | RC – referee | CC – community | EC – editor | CEC – chief editor | : Report abuse
  • RC1: 'Comment on hess-2023-74', Marc Bierkens, 12 Jun 2023
  • RC2: 'Comment on hess-2023-74', Thomas Hermans, 16 Jun 2023
  • RC3: 'Comment on hess-2023-74', Anonymous Referee #3, 26 Jun 2023

Status: closed

Comment types: AC – author | RC – referee | CC – community | EC – editor | CEC – chief editor | : Report abuse
  • RC1: 'Comment on hess-2023-74', Marc Bierkens, 12 Jun 2023
  • RC2: 'Comment on hess-2023-74', Thomas Hermans, 16 Jun 2023
  • RC3: 'Comment on hess-2023-74', Anonymous Referee #3, 26 Jun 2023

Trine Enemark et al.

Trine Enemark et al.

Viewed

Total article views: 511 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)
HTML PDF XML Total Supplement BibTeX EndNote
381 110 20 511 40 5 4
  • HTML: 381
  • PDF: 110
  • XML: 20
  • Total: 511
  • Supplement: 40
  • BibTeX: 5
  • EndNote: 4
Views and downloads (calculated since 24 May 2023)
Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 24 May 2023)

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Total article views: 488 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 488 with geography defined and 0 with unknown origin.
Country # Views %
  • 1
1
 
 
 
 
Latest update: 05 Dec 2023
Download
Short summary
In this study, we demonstrate an approach to evaluate the interpretation uncertainty within a manually interpreted geological model in a groundwater model. Using qualitative estimates of uncertainties, several geological realizations are developed and implemented in groundwater models. We confirm existing evidence that if the conceptual model is well-defined, interpretation uncertainties within the conceptual model have limited impact on groundwater model predictions.