Applied Multidimensional Geological Modeling E-Book

• Herausgeber: John Wiley & Sons
• Kategorie: Wissenschaft und neue Technologien
• Sprache: Englisch

Seitenzahl: 1601

Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2021

Beschreibung

Over the past decades, geological survey organizations have digitized their data handling and holdings, unlocking vast amounts of data and information for computer processing. They have undertaken 3-D modeling alongside, and in some cases instead of, conventional geological mapping and begun delivering both data and interpretations to increasingly diverse stakeholder communities. Applied Multidimensional Geological Modeling provides a citable central source that documents the current capabilities and contributions of leading geological survey organization and other practitioners in industry and academia that are producing multidimensional geological models.

This book focuses on applications related to human interactions with conditions in the shallow subsurface, within 100-200 m of the surface. The 26 chapters, developed by 100 contributors associated with 37 organizations, discuss topics relevant to any geologist, scientist, engineer, urban planner, or decision maker whose practice includes assessment or planning of underground space.

Leseprobe

Table of Contents

Cover

Title Page

Copyright

List of Contributors

The Editors

The Authors

Acknowledgments

Part I: Introduction and Background

1 Introduction to Modeling Terminology and Concepts

1.1 Mapping or Modeling – Which Is Correct?

1.2 Why Use “Multidimensional”?

1.3 Evolution of Digital Geological Modeling

1.4 Overview of the Book

References

2 Geological Survey Data and the Move from 2-D to 4-D

2.1 Introduction

2.2 The Role of Geological Survey Organizations

2.3 Challenges Facing Geological Survey Organizations

2.4 A Geological Map is Not a Piece of Paper

2.5 The Importance of Effective Data Management

2.6 The Challenges of Parameterization – Putting Numbers on the Geology

2.7 Use of 3‐D Geological Models with Process Models

2.8 The Evolving Mission of the Geological Survey of the Netherlands

2.9 Experience With a Multiagency and Multijurisdictional Approach to 3‐D Mapping in the Great Lakes Region

2.10 Conclusions

References

3 Legislation, Regulation, and Management

3.1 Introduction

3.2 Layers of the Subsurface

3.3 Legal Systems

3.4 Land Ownership

3.5 Regulation and Management

3.6 Approaches to Subsurface Development

3.7 Involving Stakeholders

3.8 Delivery of Information

3.9 The Role of 3‐D Subsurface Models

3.10 Conclusions

References

4 The Economic Case for Establishing Subsurface Ground Conditions and the Use of Geological Models

4.1 Introduction

4.2 The Nature of Geotechnical Investigations

4.3 Benefits of Using 3‐D Models and Establishing Subsurface Ground Conditions

4.4 Processes, Codes, and Guidelines for Establishing Subsurface Conditions and Managing Risk

4.5 Examples of the Use of 3‐D Geological Models for Infrastructure Projects

Acknowledgments

References

Part II: Building and Managing Models

5 Overview and History of 3‐D Modeling Approaches

5.1 Introduction

5.2 Historical Development of 3‐D Modeling

5.3 The Mahomet Aquifer: An Example of Evolving Subsurface Modeling

5.4 Digital 3‐D Geological Modeling Approaches Discussed in This Book

References

6 Effective and Efficient Workflows

6.1 Introduction

6.2 Operational Considerations

6.3 Selection of Modeling Methods and Software

6.4 Products and Distribution

6.5 Model Maintenance and Upgrades

6.6 Illinois State Geological Survey 3‐D Modeling Workflows

6.7 Modeling Workflow Solutions by Other Organizations

6.8 Creating a Custom Workflow

Acknowledgments

References

7 Data Sources for Building Geological Models

7.1 Introduction

7.2 Defining and Classifying Data

7.3 Legacy Data

7.4 Elevation Data

7.5 Surficial and Subsurface Geological Data

7.6 Geophysical Data

Acknowledgments

References

8 Data Management Considerations

8.1 Introduction

8.2 Data Management Methods

8.3 Managing Source Data for Modeling

8.4 Managing Geological Framework Models

8.5 Managing Geological Properties Data and Property Models

8.6 Managing Process Models

8.7 Integrated Data Management in the Danish National Groundwater Mapping Program

8.8 Transboundary Modeling

Acknowledgments

References

9 Model Creation Using Stacked Surfaces

9.1 Introduction

9.2 Rationale for Using Stacked Surfaces

9.3 Software Functionality to Support Stacked‐Surface Modeling

9.4 Defining the Stacked‐Surface Model Framework

9.5 Building Stacked‐Surface Geologic Framework Models

9.6 Examples of 3‐D Framework Modeling Approaches by Different Organizations

9.7 Conclusions

References

10 Model Creation Based on Digital Borehole Records and Interpreted Geological Cross‐Sections

10.1 Introduction

10.2 The GSI3D Model Construction Sequence

10.3 Model Calculation Considerations

10.4 Additional Considerations on Using This Methodology

10.5 Other Software Options

10.6 Discussion and Conclusions

References

11 Models Created as 3‐D Cellular Voxel Arrays

11.1 Introduction

11.2 Construction of Voxel Models

11.3 Model Uncertainty

11.4 The Value of Adding Property Attributes

11.5 Derived Products for Applications

11.6 Examples of Applications

11.7 Voxel Models Outside the Netherlands

11.8 Conclusions

References

12 Integrated Rule‐Based Geomodeling – Explicit and Implicit Approaches

12.1 Introduction

12.2 Interpolation Methods

12.3 SKUA‐GOCAD Geomodeling System

12.4 Modeling Shallow Discontinuous Quaternary Deposits with GOCAD

12.5 BRGM Geomodeling Software

12.6 Conclusions

References

13 Discretization and Stochastic Modeling

13.1 Introduction

13.2 Grids and Meshes

13.3 Structured Grids and Meshes

13.4 Unstructured Grids and Meshes

13.5 Considerations that Influence Grid and Mesh Design

13.6 Grid and Mesh Generation and Refinement

13.7 Stochastic Property Modeling

13.8 Conclusions

References

14 Linkage to Process Models

14.1 Introduction

14.2 Importance of Subsurface Flow and Transport

14.3 Numerical Flow and Transport Modeling

14.4 Model Classification

14.5 Building Hydrogeological Models Based on Geological Models

14.6 Alternative Approaches to Model Calibration

14.7 Geotechnical Applications of Geological Models

14.8 Discussion

Acknowledgments

References

15 Uncertainty in 3‐D Geological Models

15.1 Introduction

15.2 Sources of Uncertainty

15.3 Alternative Approaches to Uncertainty Evaluation

15.4 Evaluating Uncertainty of Interpretation

15.5 Evaluating Model Uncertainty

15.6 Computational Aspects of Uncertainty Evaluations

15.7 Communicating Uncertainty

References

Part III: Using and Disseminating Models

16 Emerging User Needs in Urban Planning

16.1 Introduction

16.2 Urban Planning in Brief

16.3 Resilient Cities

16.4 Challenges to Urban Subsurface Modeling

16.5 Case Example: Planning for a More Resilient New Orleans

16.6 Conclusions

Acknowledgments

References

17 Providing Model Results to Diverse User Communities

17.1 Introduction

17.2 Visualization Principles

17.3 Dissemination of Static Visual Products

17.4 Dissemination of Digital Geological Models or Data

17.5 Use of Animations to Explore Geological Models

17.6 Interactive Visualization of Multivariate Statistical Data

17.7 Interactive Model Illustrations

17.8 Interactive Creation or Interrogation of Digital Geological Models

17.9 Interactive Physical Geological Models

17.10 Conclusions

Acknowledgments

References

Part IV: Case Studies

18 Application Theme 1 – Urban Planning

Editor's Introduction

Case Study 18.1: Integrated 3‐D Modeling of the Urban Underground of Darmstadt, Hesse, Germany

Case Study 18.2: Accessing Subsurface Knowledge (ASK) Network – Improving the Use of Subsurface Information for Glasgow Urban Renewal

Case Study 18.3: Geological Subsurface Models for Urban Planning in Mega‐Cities: An Example from Dhaka, Bangladesh

References

19 Application Theme 2 – Groundwater Evaluations

Editor's Introduction

Case Study 19.1: Three‐dimensional Geological Modeling of the Uppsala Esker to Evaluate the Supply of Municipal Water to the City of Uppsala

Case Study 19.2: Three‐dimensional Geological Modeling of the Orangeville‐Fergus Area to Support Protection of Groundwater Resources

Case Study 19.3: Successful Construction of a 3‐D Model with Minimal Investment: Modeling the Aquifers for Kent and Sussex Counties, State of Delaware

Case Study 19.4: REGIS II – A 3‐D Hydrogeological Model of the Netherlands

References

20 Application Theme 3 – Geothermal Heating and Cooling

Editor's Introduction

Case Study 20.1: Assessing Shallow Geothermal Resources at Zaragoza, Northeast Spain, with 3‐D Geological Models

Case Study 20.2: Cross‐border 3‐D Models for Assessing Geothermal Resources

Case Study 20.3: Use of 3‐D Models to Evaluate Deep Geothermal Potentials in Hesse, Germany

References

21 Application Theme 4 – Regulatory Support

Editor's Introduction

Case Study 21.1: The use of 3‐D Models to Manage the Groundwater Resources of the Lower Greensand Confined Aquifer, Hertfordshire and North London, England

Case Study 21.2: Regional 3‐D Models of Bremen, Germany: Management Tools for Resource Administration

References

22 Application Theme 5 – Geohazard and Environmental Risk Applications

Editor's Introduction

Case Study 22.1: Christchurch City, New Zealand, 3‐D Geological Model Contributes to Post‐Earthquake Rebuilding

Case Study 22.2: Evaluation of Cliff Instability at Barton‐On‐Sea, Hampshire, England, with 3‐D Subsurface Models

Case Study 22.3: Role of 3‐D Geological Models in Evaluation of Coastal Change, Trimingham, Norfolk, UK

Case Study 22.4: Three‐dimensional Geochemical Modeling to Anticipate the Management of Excavated Materials Linked to Urban Redevelopment – Example of Nantes

Case Study 22.5: Managing Drinking Water Supplies for Ljubjana, Slovenia with a 3‐D Hydrofacies Model, Numerical Groundwater Flow and Transport Model, and Decision Support System

References

23 Application Theme 6 – Urban Infrastructure

Editor's Introduction

Case Study 23.1: Design and Construction of a New Crossrail Station in London Assisted by a 3‐D Ground Model

Case Study 23.2: Using 3‐D Models to Evaluate Designs for Railway Infrastructure Renewal

Case Study 23.3: Use of Integrated BIM and Geological Models for the Reference Design of the Silvertown Tunnel, East London

References

24 Application Theme 7 – Building and Construction

Editor's Introduction

Case Study 24.1: Three‐Dimensional Volume Change Potential Modeling in the London Clay

Case Study 24.2: Dutch Experience in Aggregate Resource Modeling

Case Study 24.3: Modeling the Distribution and Quality of Sand and Gravel Resources in 3‐D: A Case Study in the Thames Basin, UK

References

25 Application Theme 8 – Historical Preservation and Anthropogenic Deposits

Editor's Introduction

Case Study 25.1: Evaluating Geological and Anthropogenic Deposits at the Bryggen World Heritage Site, Bergen, Norway

Case Study 25.2: Characterizing the Near‐Surface Geology of Newcastle upon Tyne

Acknowledgment

Case Study 25.3: Techniques and Issues Regarding the 3‐D Mapping of Artificially Modified Ground

References

Part V: Future Possibilities and Challenges

26 Anticipated Technological Advances

26.1 Looking Forward

26.2 General Technological Trends

26.3 Current Successes and Conundrums

26.4 Three Technology Cases in Detail

26.5 Future Operational Considerations

26.6 Economic and Legal Issues

26.7 Conclusions

References

Index

End User License Agreement

List of Tables

Chapter 2

Table 2.1 Data types contained in BRO key register (Van der Meulen et al. 201...

Chapter 3

Table 3.1 Issues influencing subsurface development.

Table 3.2 Comparison of three widely referenced classifications of legal syst...

Table 3.3 Mattei's taxonomy of world's legal systems.

Table 3.4 Examples of 3‐D models at the time of writing.

Table 3.5 Planning a 3‐D modeling initiative that delivers appropriate inform...

Chapter 4

Table 4.1 A simplified example of GeoQ steps during normal project stages.

Table 4.2 Summary of impacts of geotechnical problems on construction project...

Table 4.3 Example of the selection of ground investigation methods at differe...

Chapter 8

Table 8.1 Important SQL and relational database terms.

Table 8.2 Supported functionality of unnormalized and normalized relational d...

Table 8.3 Characteristics and advantages of the “Sewing” and the “Knitting”‐a...

Table 8.4 Characteristics of the most recent Dutch, Flemish, and German 3‐D m...

Chapter 9

Table 9.1 Software products that have been found useful for creating geologic...

Table 9.2 Common interpolation methods.

Chapter 12

Table 12.1 Defined GOCAD terms and objects.

a

Table 12.2 Commonly used datasets, their dimensions, and their sources.

Table 12.3 Validation criteria for existing boreholes.

Table 12.4 GDM Software Suite modules and their applications.

Chapter 13

Table 13.1 Classification of grids and meshes.

Chapter 14

Table 14.1 Classification of numerical methods for rock mechanics evaluations

Chapter 15

Table 15.1 Classes of geological information which are routinely collected to...

Table 15.2 Qualification of uncertainty based on borehole density, borehole q...

Table 15.3 Decrease in model error variance with increasing geologist experie...

Table 15.4 Confidence Index parameter values of for the East Midlands study a...

Chapter 16

Table 16.1 United Nations sustainable development goals.

Table 16.2 American and Dutch members of the Greater New Orleans Water Manage...

Chapter 17

Table 17.1 Currently available geological model viewers.

Table 17.2 Definition of commonly used interactive tools used for dynamic vis...

Table 17.3 Summary characteristics of geological laser‐engraved glass models ...

Chapter 18

Table 18.1 Software employed by each 3‐D model development stage.

Table 18.2 Range of hydraulic conductivity

k

f

for loose rock according to Garl...

Table 18.3 Development of 3‐D geological models in the Glasgow area.

Table 18.4 Stratigraphy of Dhaka metropolitan city.

Table 18.5 Characteristics of the three Dhaka models.

Chapter 19

Table 19.1 Aquifers underlying Kent and Sussex Counties, Delaware.

Table 19.2 Green‐shaded entries define the available REGIS II gridded map fil...

Chapter 20

Table 20.1 Benchmark parameters to define the degrees of efficiency for binar...

Table 20.2 Deep geothermal potential

a

of the different Hessian hydrothermal a...

Chapter 21

Table 21.2 Surficial deposits overlying the Lower Greensand Group aquifer out...

Table 21.1 Bedrock stratigraphy of the Lower Greensand Group aquifer model ar...

Table 21.3 Selected entries from the Generalized Vertical Section used in the...

Table 21.4 Simplified Neogene to Quaternary stratigraphy of Bremen.

Table 21.5 Descriptions and characteristics of 3‐D model horizons and compone...

Chapter 22

Table 22.1 Late quaternary geological units in the Christchurch 3‐D geologica...

Table 22.2 Summary of model characteristics.

Table 22.3 Surfaces built for the Christchurch Geological Model. The top surf...

Table 22.4 Summary of the stratigraphic units of the Barton Group at Barton‐o...

Table 22.5 Calculated volumes (m

3

) and proportions (%) of materials for each ...

Table 22.6 Attributes of the hydrofacies.

Chapter 23

Table 23.1 Regional stratigraphy of the Silvertown site.

Chapter 24

Table 24.1 Classification of volume change potential.

Table 24.2 Example of 3‐D GeoSure shrink‐swell tabulation for a 50 m × 50 m c...

Table 24.3 The yields of concrete aggregate, masonry sand, and constructional...

Table 24.4 Extraction criteria relevant when the Mineral Assessment Reports (...

Table 24.5 Contents of the project sand and gravel table extracted from the M...

Table 24.6 Expected volumes of four grading categories across the modeled reg...

Chapter 25

Table 25.1 Interpretation of inferred permeability for model units, based on ...

Table 25.2 The five basic classes of AMG shown on BGS maps (Ford et al. 2010)...

Table 25.3 Thickness of artificial deposits relative to first underlying natu...

List of Illustrations

Chapter 2

Figure 2.1 Geological map of southern Pembrokeshire, surveyed by De la Beche...

Figure 2.2 The first geological map of the United States..

Figure 2.3 William Smith's 1799 geological map of Bath, UK..

Figure 2.4 BGS 3‐D geological framework models created prior to 2016. Red ar...

Figure 2.5 BRO data flow diagram showing the key activities and processes of...

Figure 2.6 Great Lakes Geologic Mapping Coalition, 2014 short‐ and long‐rang...

Figure 2.7 Three‐dimensional image of the western part of Lake County, Illin...

Figure 2.8 Portion of a karst‐induced groundwater flooding map near Bellevue...

Chapter 3

Figure 3.1 Classification of the subsurface into two layers.

Figure 3.2 The Dutch spatial planning layer approach distinguishing three la...

Figure 3.3 Underground utilities exposed in a New York City street after rem...

Figure 3.4 Graphical representation of taxonomy of World's legal systems....

Figure 3.2.1 Definition of “Deep Underground” according to the Japanese Spec...

Figure 3.6.1 Map of Cologne new North‐South Metro Line.

Figure 3.5 Important information levels in the knowledge building process an...

Figure 3.6 The fence diagram developed for the 2012 Version of GB3D.

Figure 3.7 Screenshot of UK3D cross sections for northern England, demonstra...

Figure 3.8 The GB3D national model showing an aquifer classification for sou...

Figure 3.9 The LithoFrame concept showing varied detail at differing levels ...

Figure 3.10 Variety of provincial and sub‐model scale 3‐D models that are co...

Figure 3.11 GeoMol project area, including five pilot areas and one special ...

Figure 3.12 Rotterdam “traffic light” visualization of development constrain...

Chapter 4

Figure 4.1 The six GeoQ phases.

Figure 4.2 The six GeoQ risk management steps are performed sequentially wit...

Figure 4.3 Geological models are iteratively developed from conceptual and o...

Figure 4.4 Burland's geotechnical triangle.

Figure 4.5 Evolution of project knowledge through project development.

Figure 4.6 Breakdown of costs for a typical building (Chapman 2008).

Figure 4.7 3‐D model as the nucleus of a typical interactive project workflo...

Figure 4.1.1 Screenshot of the modeling interface showing a borehole log, an...

Figure 4.1.2 Screenshot of the refined 3‐D model for Wembley, showing boreho...

Figure 4.1.3 Example client report illustration: a model cross‐section with ...

Figure 4.8 A screen capture of the 3‐D Geological Fault Model developed for ...

Figure 4.9 Design for a proposed sheet pile wall, including existing ground ...

Figure 4.10 Example of 3‐D visualization of the Silvertown Tunnel design sho...

Chapter 5

Figure 5.1 Example of a “stripe map” – a version of profile‐type maps, which...

Figure 5.2 Cross‐section L–L′ of part of the McHenry USGS 7.5‐minute quadran...

Figure 5.3 Example of a colored stack‐unit map.

Figure 5.4 Basic concept of electric analog model: (A) elemental cube of por...

Figure 5.5 Interpreted thalweg of the Teays‐Mahomet river system from Brown ...

Figure 5.6 Map of east‐central Illinois showing the boundaries of the Mahome...

Figure 5.7 Conceptual stratigraphic column of Pleistocene deposits of east‐c...

Figure 5.8 Analog model of the Mahomet aquifer in the Champaign‐Urbana area ...

Figure 5.9 The 3‐D EarthVision model by Soller et al. (1999): (a) land surfa...

Figure 5.10 Simplified cross‐sections showing how the geological and hydroge...

Figure 5.11 Cross‐sections from the most recent 3‐D geological model and gro...

Chapter 6

Figure 6.1 Generic 3‐D geologic framework modeling workflow.

Figure 6.2 McHenry County location map and overview of 3‐D geologic framewor...

Figure 6.3 View of the 3‐D PDF display of the BGS Assynt Culmination model. ...

Figure 6.4 Generalized workflow for 3‐D modeling of Quaternary sediments in ...

Figure 6.5 Model development using ArcScene software. (a) 3‐D view of a port...

Figure 6.6 Completed McHenry County model showing topography and surficial g...

Figure 6.7 Selected cross‐sections displayed above the bedrock surface grid....

Figure 6.8 Geophysical profiles provide information on the glacial deposits:...

Figure 6.9 Example of the impacts of verifying water‐well locations. (a) Ini...

Figure 6.10 Typical Ross‐team workflow for modeling Quaternary deposits for ...

Figure 6.11 Generalized workflow for 3‐D modeling of coastal province deposi...

Figure 6.12 Generalized workflow for 3‐D modeling of Quaternary sediments at...

Chapter 7

Figure 7.1 Comparison of data and information from a continuously cored bore...

Figure 7.2 Field sketch of a dipping anticline.

Figure 7.3 Distribution of legacy datasets (geological, geotechnical, petrol...

Figure 7.4 Geotechnical borehole records obtained from different sources for...

Figure 7.5 DTMs for a portion of Ontario, Canada. On the right, bathymetric ...

Figure 7.6 Eight versions of terrain data for a section of the Grand River f...

Figure 7.7 Comparison of surficial and subsurface geological data obtained f...

Figure 7.8 Pan‐provincial digital maps available from the Ontario Geological...

Figure 7.9 Comparison of legacy (a) and new (b) surficial geology maps of th...

Figure 7.10 Examples of two digital formats for a portion of the high‐resolu...

Figure 7.11 Examples of core drilled for OGS 3‐D sediment mapping projects i...

Figure 7.1.1 Detailed graphic log for a new borehole drilled on the Niagara ...

Figure 7.12 Two cross‐sections along transects perpendicular to the Orangevi...

Figure 7.13 Variety of provincial and sub‐model scale 3‐D models that are co...

Figure 7.14 Comparison of the surficial geology map (a) and the soils map (b...

Figure 7.15 Distribution of geotechnical records in the urban geology automa...

Figure 7.16 Ontario water wells plotted using location data obtained from th...

Figure 7.17 Close‐up of Ontario water wells plotted using location data obta...

Figure 7.18 Typical 5 km east–west transect in the Winnipeg region, showing ...

Figure 7.19 Examples of scanned Ontario water well records from two adjacent...

Figure 7.20 Location of petroleum records (gray dots) and water well records...

Figure 7.21 Seismic Refraction Method. The ray paths and time distance graph...

Figure 7.22 Results of seismic refraction measurements collected near Guelph...

Figure 7.23 Comparison of relationship between degree of saturation (S

r

) and...

Figure 7.24 The seismic reflection method (

Figure 7.25 Microvib and SH‐wave geophones in operation along Interstate 70 ...

Figure 7.26 Illustration of the surface wave dispersion effect.

Figure 7.27 Example of a 2‐D shear‐wave velocity model generated from MASW, ...

Figure 7.28 Basic DC resistivity four‐pin electrode configuration (a) Data r...

Figure 7.29 Various resistivity electrode array configurations: (top to bott...

Figure 7.30 Example 2‐D profile for ∼1 km long ERT survey. (a) Measured appa...

Figure 7.31 Generation of 2.5‐D ERT earth model for a buried bedrock channel...

Figure 7.32 Concept diagram for electromagnetic methods. An electrical curre...

Figure 7.33 Time Domain Electromagnetic Sounding. (a) Field TDEM measurement...

Figure 7.34 FDEM ground survey using a Dualem421 instrument which has dual‐o...

Figure 7.35 FDEM data example of mapping clay beneath roadways. Upper plot i...

Figure 7.36 A Eurocopter AS 350 conducts an airborne electromagnetic survey ...

Figure 7.37 Airborne electromagnetic (AEM) survey example. (a) Map showing A...

Figure 7.38 Gravitational pull over a bedrock depression (Wightman et al. 20...

Figure 7.39 Gravity surveys successfully defined buried bedrock valley near ...

Figure 7.40 Ground Penetrating Radar schematic (Wightman et al. 2003).

Figure 7.41 GPR reflection profile acquired in a carbonate environment using...

Figure 7.42 3‐D GPR model for environmental application.

Figure 7.43 Two applications of ground penetrating radar data. (a) Structure...

Figure 7.44 Borehole logs from the Waterloo, Ontario region with responses c...

Figure 7.45 Example 1‐D velocity plot, derived from OYO P‐S Suspension Loggi...

Figure 7.46 Schematic of cross hole geophysical logging (Wightman et al. 200...

Figure 7.47 Source and receiver locations for a borehole tomographic survey ...

Figure 7.48 Tomograms showing: (a) low‐velocity zones in bedrock near socket...

Figure 7.49 Schematic drawing of P‐S Suspension Logging system.

Chapter 8

Figure 8.1 Data life cycle.

Figure 8.2 Flowchart of the data modeling process that incorporates external...

Figure 8.3 Relational database terminology.

Figure 8.4 High‐level entity‐relationship diagram for the BGS borehole data ...

Figure 8.5 A denormalized database that combines selected data from multiple...

Figure 8.6 A high‐level overview of the BGS Geoscience Data Hub.

Figure 8.7 High‐level entity‐relationship diagram for a geochemistry data mo...

Figure 8.8 The components included in a downloadable database design package...

Figure 8.9 The Geological Object Store (GOS) is an agnostic Oracle Spatial d...

Figure 8.10 Detail of BGS national geological model cross‐section 29. Extra ...

Figure 8.11 The imposition of data management protocols allows for model int...

Figure 8.12 The GEUS integrated system of databases and program packages han...

Figure 8.13 Data coverage and results from an area in eastern Jylland. (a) M...

Figure 8.14 Location of the Roer Valley Graben and H3O project areas.

Figure 8.15 Transboundary mismatches between Flemish and the Dutch models. (...

Figure 8.17 The four‐stage model development process used by the H3O Project...

Figure 8.16 Locations of cross‐sections shown in Figures 8.15 and 8.22 (Deck...

Figure 8.18 Primary data sources used to create the H3O – Roer Valley Graben...

Figure 8.19 H3O modeling workflow develops a combined model by combining mod...

Figure 8.20 Examples of models of (a) shallow units – Stramproy Formation an...

Figure 8.21 Completed 3‐D geological model of Roer Valley Graben (Vernes et ...

Figure 8.22 Hydrogeological cross‐section B‐B′ of the Roer Valley Graben loc...

Figure 8.23 GeoMol Project area, including five pilot areas and one Special ...

Figure 8.24 A model display produced by the new 3‐D browser portraying the e...

Chapter 9

Figure 9.1 Cross‐sections illustrating the use of Grid Math Tools to resolve...

Figure 9.2 Three‐dimensional visualization of various subsurface data used i...

Figure 9.3 Three‐dimensional view of subsurface data illustrating a case whe...

Figure 9.4 Three‐dimensional view of a stacked surface representing bedrock ...

Figure 9.5 (a) Three‐dimensional view of synthetic borehole data used to sup...

Figure 9.6 Diagrams showing: (a) model‐construction order of geologic events...

Figure 9.7 Stacked‐surface models have to account for areas of non‐depositio...

Figure 9.8 Stacked‐surface models must represent erosion and deposition proc...

Figure 9.9 (a) Perspective view of preliminary stacked surfaces in the area ...

Figure 9.10 Distribution of subsurface data that was used for 3‐D stacked‐su...

Figure 9.11 Adobe Illustrator art board showing attributed contour lines (mu...

Figure 9.12 Perspective view of the final 3‐D stacked‐surface model of Lake ...

Figure 9.15 Legacy cross‐section graphics could be georeferenced with by Xac...

Figure 9.13 The red arrow identifies the Xacto Section toolbar within an exa...

Figure 9.14 A 2‐D cross‐section profile could be edited in ArcMap and conver...

Figure 9.16 A 3‐D scene developed by ArcScene shows borehole lines symbolize...

Figure 9.17 Three‐dimensional geologic model of the Oak Ridges Moraine area....

Figure 9.18 Interpolated stacked surface of the Grande Ronde Basalt and asso...

Figure 9.19 Three‐dimensional visualization of cross‐sections and structure‐...

Figure 9.20 Overview of the Floridian Aquifer System in the southeastern Uni...

Chapter 10

Figure 10.1 GSI3D is only one component of the BGS cyberinfrastructure.

Figure 10.2 GSI3D user interface has four windows – (1) Map, (2) 3‐D, (3) Se...

Figure 10.3 GSI3D model creation workflow occurs in three stages: model buil...

Figure 10.4 Examples of cross‐section design for GSI3D model creation.

Figure 10.5 Examples of (a) a common (or template) TIN and (b) surface defin...

Figure 10.6 Potential problems result when a TIN is formed by the Delaunay m...

Figure 10.7 Three geological situations that are difficult to model using on...

Figure 10.8 Faults oriented obliquely to a model cross‐section may have comp...

Figure 10.9 Transition to an over‐turned fold may be impossible to model wit...

Figure 10.10 GeoScene3D lithologic voxel model showing locations of pipeline...

Figure 10.11 Typical view of Groundhog Desktop in use with map linework, cro...

Chapter 11

Figure 11.1 Schematic geological map of the Netherlands showing the complete...

Figure 11.2 GeoTOP 3‐D views of the Gelderse Vallei area in the central part...

Figure 11.3 Main steps to construct the GeoTOP model. (a) Step 1: Interpreta...

Figure 11.4 Probability of the occurrence of clay in the flood basin area of...

Figure 11.5 A bar graph shows the probabilities of occurrence of each lithol...

Figure 11.6 Vertical voxel stack taken from the GDN's interactive web portal...

Figure 11.7 Typical variation in borehole density that GeoTOP modeling has t...

Figure 11.8 Upscaling issues when determining GeoTOP model hydraulic conduct...

Figure 11.9 Upscaling hydraulic conductivity within a GeoTOP 100 m × 100 m ×...

Figure 11.10 Vertical hydraulic conductivity (as measured from the samples) ...

Figure 11.11 Hydraulic resistance for vertical flow for Holocene deposits in...

Figure 11.12 GeoTOP model of the Groningen area in 3‐D, attributed with shea...

Figure 11.13 Two cross‐sections showing Holocene peat voxels attributed with...

Figure 11.14 Horizontal slices through the voxel model attributed with litho...

Figure 11.15 Examples of a secondary products created by a vertical voxel st...

Figure 11.16 Cross‐sections along the trajectory of a light‐rail tunnel in t...

Figure 11.17 Prediction of land subsidence due to oxidation of near‐surface ...

Figure 11.18 Maps showing: (a) accumulated Holocene peat thickness; (b) surf...

Figure 11.19 Cross‐section through two generations of voxel models used in a...

Figure 11.20 Channel belts in the Holocene Rhine‐Meuse delta (the Netherland...

Figure 11.21 Channel belt lithology and grain‐size variation (here depicted ...

Figure 11.22 Downstream changes in percentages of fine‐sand (yellow bars) an...

Figure 11.23 Downstream change in Channel Deposit Proportion (CDP) in the Ho...

Figure 11.24 Risk map of the river Vecht near Utrecht, the Netherlands, show...

Figure 11.25 Voxel model of the Tokyo Lowland area showing the 3‐D distribut...

Figure 11.26 (a) Map of the damage‐ratio of wooden houses (). (b) Map sh...

Figure 11.27 Probabilities of occurrence in the voxel model of the Belgian C...

Chapter 12

Figure 12.1 Four methods generating curved smooth surfaces: (a) 2‐D Bezier c...

Figure 12.2 Typical data sources and data preparation steps before modeling ...

Figure 12.3 Interpretive cross‐sections, map polygons and borehole markers p...

Figure 12.4 Example of five‐layer model with discontinuous geological units;...

Figure 12.5 Three volumetric representation options for a typical GFM.....

Figure 12.6 Example of semi‐regular grid with prismatic cells..

Figure 12.7 Location map of the eastern Canada study area.

Figure 12.8 (a) Surficial geology between the Laurentian Highlands, the Otta...

Figure 12.9 Five views of the Geological Framework Model: (a) Completed geol...

Figure 12.10 GDM Software Suite examples from the Aquitanian Basin, south‐we...

Figure 12.11 Input data and classical output results used for geological mod...

Figure 12.12 Map of known geologic contacts (green dots) for formations belo...

Figure 12.13 Geological modeling by potential field interpolation; (a) geolo...

Figure 12.14 A 2‐D view of a geologic section with three series of geologic ...

Figure 12.15 GeoModeller 3‐D model creation and validation process..

Figure 12.16 Example of a completed 3‐D model, map, and sections for the ent...

Figure 12.17 The initial model based on surface observations of geological c...

Figure 12.18 A more refined model following completion of the field survey i...

Figure 12.19 Final model after incorporation of drill holes and comparison t...

Chapter 13

Figure 13.1 Terminology defining basic features of grids and meshes.

Figure 13.2 Basic elements forming 2‐D grids or 3‐D meshes.

Figure 13.3 Terminology defining basic features of grids and meshes.

Figure 13.4 Grid location definitions; (a) by corner nodes, (b) by centroids...

Figure 13.5 A typical 2‐D geological cross section – the rectangular region ...

Figure 13.6 Basic regular quadrilateral (Raster) grid.

Figure 13.7 Quadtree grid.

Figure 13.8 Blocky visualization typical of voxel or octree models.

Figure 13.9 A geocellular model with multiple stratigraphic geobjects.

Figure 13.10 Coarse and fine unstructured grids – both conform to the geolog...

Figure 13.11 Tetrahedral unstructured mesh model of Yucca Mountain unsaturat...

Figure 13.12 A 3‐D unstructured mesh model of a faulted layered sequence....

Figure 13.13 Cubit filled “3‐sided” regions with quadrilateral elements in 2...

Figure 13.14 Example of Cubit conversion of 3‐D tetrahedral mesh to hexahedr...

Figure 13.15 Example of finer mesh merged with a coarser mesh.

Figure 13.1.1 A visual definition of Delaunay Triangle Flipping. (a) Sum of ...

Figure 13.16 (a) Conditioning point data example; (b) Result produced by kri...

Figure 13.17 Flowchart of Sequential Indicator Simulation process.

Figure 13.18 Example of Sequential Indicator Simulation in 2‐D.

Figure 13.19 Simulated annealing (or “quenching”) improves the geometric con...

Figure 13.20 Example of a T‐PROGS generated 3‐D grid with four lithofacies....

Figure 13.21 3‐D view of the base case stochastic simulation model of a 6 km...

Figure 13.22 The Multiple Point Statistics procedure uses a training image t...

Chapter 14

Figure 14.1 Causes of groundwater flooding in two principal settings.

Figure 14.2 Surface and groundwater process modeling hierarchy.

Figure 14.3 Conceptual model of hydrological processes, as represented in th...

Figure 14.4 Hydrogeological conceptual model of the Basin and Range region i...

Figure 14.5 Data categories forming a centralized database to support modeli...

Figure 14.6 Hydrogeological information flow and management concept.

Figure 14.7 Information management for integrated geological, hydrogeologica...

Figure 14.8 Lithostratigraphy and hydrostratigraphy of the Cretaceous rocks ...

Figure 14.9 Schematic diagrams showing: (a) the geological characteristics o...

Figure 14.10 Schematic steps in groundwater modeling in the Netherlands.

Figure 14.11 Location of the groundwater flow model Azure (gray rectangle) i...

Figure 14.12 Cross‐section of the groundwater flow model Azure, with all aqu...

Figure 14.13 The most likely vertical hydraulic conductivity values of sandy...

Figure 14.14 Cumulative distribution functions of the most likely vertical h...

Figure 14.15 Maps of Chichester study area. (a) Location map showing Chiches...

Figure 14.16 The South Downs 3‐D geological model viewed from the south. (Sh...

Figure 14.17 Simplified 3‐D geological model of the Chichester study area sh...

Figure 14.18 Map of revised Chichester geological model surface features, sh...

Figure 14.19 SHETRAN model representation of surface geology and River Lavan...

Figure 14.20 Cross‐sections of simulated groundwater levels for July 1993 fr...

Figure 14.21 The River Thames catchment boundary, and the location and exten...

Figure 14.22 Model linkages and input/output parameters within the Thames In...

Figure 14.23 Data layers used in the national scale SHETRAN modeling.

Figure 14.24 Results from national scale SHETRAN modeling: (a) Nash‐Sutcliff...

Figure 14.25 Geological models of the lithostratigraphy for the second Heine...

Figure 14.26 Visualization of proposed Heinenoord Tunnel alignment showing t...

Figure 14.27 Estimated vertical displacements on the Heinenoord Tunnel proje...

Figure 14.28 PLAXIS FEM analysis of deformations occurring on the existing r...

Figure 14.29 Geological cross‐section of Driskos Twin Tunnel alignment. Whit...

Figure 14.30 Northeastern portals of Driskos Twin Tunnels during constructio...

Figure 14.31 Two numerical models of the Driskos Twin Tunnel. (a) 3‐D finite...

Figure 14.32 Hybrid FEM/DEM modeling of tunnel in hard rock – example from t...

Chapter 15

Figure 15.1 Example of a Canadian geological map showing bedrock outcrops in...

Figure 15.2 Fishbone diagram showing the causes and effects of the uncertain...

Figure 15.3 A “buffer” (cf. Bistacchi et al. 2008) i.e., a projection area a...

Figure 15.1.1 Examples of dot maps for two hydrostratigraphic units from the...

Figure 15.2.1 A schematic representation of a data‐driven model with concept...

Figure 15.2.2 Sample data distribution showing types of data support and the...

Figure 15.4 Qualitative model uncertainty evaluation for the Permo‐Triassic ...

Figure 15.5 In folded strata, such as in this cliff exposure, extrapolation ...

Figure 15.6 Kernel density smoothing function (red line) represents the cumu...

Figure 15.7 A 2‐D map of the modeled units in the East Anglia study area wit...

Figure 15.8 Statistical evaluation of the divergence of observed heights of ...

Figure 15.9 Cross‐section in London interpreted by 28 geologists.

Figure 15.10 Interpreted and observed heights of the base of the London Clay...

Figure 15.11 One expert interpretation of the base of the London Clay along ...

Figure 15.12 Predicted elevation (meters relative to sea level) of the sub‐U...

Figure 15.13 Prediction error variances of the modeled surface in Figure 15....

Figure 15.14 Semi‐quantitative assessment of uncertainty in a 3‐D geological...

Figure 15.15 Local standard deviation estimate of the uncertainty of the bas...

Figure 15.16 Analysis of uncertainties from models of the Alès area made dur...

Figure 15.17 A 3‐D geological model of Paleozoic horizons of the Givet area ...

Figure 15.18 3‐D view of a stochastic realization with characteristic tidal ...

Figure 15.19 The probability that a voxel in the Walcheren member contains t...

Figure 15.20 Distribution of boreholes and 2‐D reflection seismic lines used...

Figure 15.21 Modeled Variscan Unconformity in the East Midlands study area. ...

Figure 15.22 Lithofacies modeling results. (a) and (b) Most frequently occur...

Chapter 16

Figure 16.1 View of the extensive utilities under Fulton Street in New York ...

Figure 16.2 How the cost suburban toolbox works.

Figure 16.1.1 Planning area for the city of Ripon prone to subsidence due to...

Figure 16.1.2 3‐D geological model of the Ripon area looking north‐west. (Br...

Figure 16.3 The five LODs (Levels of Detail) of CityGML 2.0. The geometric d...

Figure 16.4 BIM urban model of City of London buildings combined with part o...

Figure 16.5 GeoCIM lifecycle. (Mielby et al. 2017)

Figure 16.6 BIM, CIM, and GeoCIM relationships by geographical scale of inte...

Figure 16.7 Map showing principal features of the New Orleans metropolitan a...

Figure 16.8 Elevation map of New Orleans. Blue/purple colors indicate elevat...

Figure 16.9 North‐south topographic profile across New Orleans showing maxim...

Figure 16.10 Flooding due to breach of the 17th Street Canal.

Figure 16.11 The preferred strategy of the Dutch Perspective report

“Protect

...

Figure 16.12 Conceptual overview of the 300 m × 300 m Mirabeau Water Garden ...

Figure 16.13 Operation of the Mirabeau Water Garden during: (A) typical rain...

Chapter 17

Figure 17.1 Examples of Sopwith wooden geological models illustrating geolog...

Figure 17.2 Screenshot showing geological cross‐sections for Northern Englan...

Figure 17.3 A GeoVisionary scene from the UK Geo‐observatories project, show...

Figure 17.4 Screenshot of a typical BGS 3D PDF model. (British Geological Su...

Figure 17.5 A 60 cm × 80 cm two‐phase lenticular flip image of the Halle (Sa...

Figure 17.6 A 50 × 80 cm 3‐D lenticular print illustrating the aquifer strat...

Figure 17.7 True color hologram of part of the 3‐D structural model of Halle...

Figure 17.8 BGS Minecraft model of the West Thurrock area, east London. (a) ...

Figure 17.9 Alberta Minecraft model of the Peace River area. (a) Model built...

Figure 17.10 Example of visual geology: (a) introduction window, (b) creatio...

Figure 17.11 A 3‐D printed model of the Mahomet aquifer in central Illinois....

Figure 17.12 A 3‐D printed model of the Netherlands is used to inform the pu...

Figure 17.13 Exploded view of Province of Alberta nine‐layer 3‐D printed mod...

Figure 17.14 South East Alberta seven‐layer model produced by 3‐D printing....

Figure 17.15 Assigning Lego brick color to geological unit.

Figure 17.16 Assigning cell values to provide 3‐D information for each brick...

Figure 17.17 The digital cross‐section imported into LDD software.

Figure 17.18 The geological cross‐section modeled in Lego.

Figure 17.19 A group of Lego enthusiasts building cross‐sections.

Figure 17.20 Two views of the laser‐engraved glass block Near Surface Geolog...

Figure 17.21 The laser‐engraved glass block Structural 3‐D Model of Halle (S...

Figure 17.22 Side view of the Thematic 3‐D Model Halle‐Neustadt which repres...

Figure 17.23 Laser‐engraved 3‐D model “Salt anticline Stassfurt” shows the b...

Figure 17.24 More detailed view of the Thematic 3‐D Model Halle‐Neustadt (Fi...

Figure 17.25 Perspective views of the detailed 10 × 10 × 10 cm cut‐out model...

Chapter 18

Figure 18.1 (a) Map of Germany. (b) Digital elevation model of the city of D...

Figure 18.2 Geological overview of Darmstadt.

Figure 18.3 Layer descriptions of two boreholes only 10 m apart show signifi...

Figure 18.4 Interpolated conductivity classes for the upper 30 m, ranging fr...

Figure 18.5 Blending of information in a 3‐D space. Technical infrastructure...

Figure 18.6 Interpolated hydraulic conductivity classes reveal wedge‐shaped ...

Figure 18.7 Portion of the model defined by cross‐sections illustrates the O...

Figure 18.8 Grain‐size distribution in the Darmstadt area. The northern part...

Figure 18.9 Typical 2‐D Darmstadt Project map product showing locations of i...

Figure 18.10 Map of central Scotland showing the location of Glasgow. The gr...

Figure 18.11 Modeled extent of abandoned mine workings under a site in easte...

Figure 18.12 Map of Glasgow area showing the coverage of available models. S...

Figure 18.13 10 × 10 km surficial deposits model of Central Glasgow, looking...

Figure 18.14 10 × 10 km bedrock model of Central Glasgow. Area of model outl...

Figure 18.15 Data deposit page for the UK Data Deposit Portal.

Figure 18.16 Deposited data search page for the UK Data Deposit Portal.

Figure 18.17 Brahmaputra/Ganges/Meghna delta system: environments of sedimen...

Figure 18.18 Simplified Geology Map of Dhaka Metropolitan City.

Figure 18.19 Example of a 3‐D model using irregular voxels.

Figure 18.20 Modeled 3‐D fault array. The insert is a stereonet projection (...

Figure 18.21 Irregular voxel model version of completed DMC model. View is f...

Figure 18.22 View of completed AM model. View is from southeast; vertical ex...

Figure 18.23 View of completed GMT model, shown as series of cross‐sections....

Figure 18.24 Geotechnical analytical product based on the AM model. 3‐D view...

Figure 18.25 3‐D view of allowable loads on 0.6 m diameter bored concrete pi...

Chapter 19

Figure 19.1 Location of the City of Uppsala, Sweden.

Figure 19.2 Map of the central parts of the Uppsala Esker – the study area....

Figure 19.3 Map of the seven simplified stratigraphic units in the northern ...

Figure 19.4 Complete set of interpreted cross‐sections.

Figure 19.5 Two views of the completed 3‐D volumetric geological model.

Figure 19.6 Comparison of cross‐sections at three stages of model developmen...

Figure 19.7 Location of the Orangeville‐Fergus study area.

Figure 19.8 Structural contour map of bedrock surface draped over a hillshad...

Figure 19.9 Distribution of subsurface data points, showing the preponderanc...

Figure 19.10 Conceptual geologic framework for the Orangeville‐Fergus area....

Figure 19.11 A subsection of the 3‐D model showing borehole traces, 3‐D “pic...

Figure 19.12 Three‐dimensional block model for 5 × 5 km subarea.

Figure 19.13 Example of aquifer vulnerability map. Red areas are locations w...

Figure 19.14 Location map identifying Kent and Sussex Counties in the State ...

Figure 19.15 A 3‐D image looking northwest showing the intersection of well ...

Figure 19.16 A cross‐section oriented NW–SE across Sussex County showing 10 ...

Figure 19.17 Subcrop map of the Manokin Aquifer. These areas are important f...

Figure 19.18 The underlying REGIS II concept; geological interpretation of f...

Figure 19.19 East–West cross‐section across the Netherlands showing the typi...

Figure 19.20 REGIS II model development workflow.

Figure 19.21 Relationship between the DGM (a and inset b) and REGIS II (inse...

Figure 19.22 Conversion of the national hydrogeological model into regional ...

Figure 19.23 A multi‐regional REGIS II application, showing the computed ave...

Figure 19.24 Groundwater application of REGIS II showing the hydraulic head ...

Chapter 20

Figure 20.1 Location of the study area including the 3‐D geological model an...

Figure 20.2 (a) Location of the geological cross‐sections used to build the ...

Figure 20.3 (a) Geological fence diagrams. (b) Representation of the 3‐D geo...

Figure 20.4 Boundary conditions of the groundwater and heat transport model....

Figure 20.5 Unstructured finite element mesh of the 3‐D groundwater and heat...

Figure 20.6 (a) Temperature distribution map showing the thermal plumes gene...

Figure 20.7 Location of the TransGeoTherm project and geological setting.

Figure 20.8 Locations of the geological cross‐sections, and the extent of th...

Figure 20.9 Southern portion of cross‐section 4 (in Figure 20.8) showing the...

Figure 20.10 Depth and number of boreholes used for the 3‐D model.

Figure 20.11 Completed 3‐D model showing the geological horizons and the DEM...

Figure 20.12 Final geological model of the Berzdorf region.

Figure 20.13 (a) Printed maps of the average geothermal extraction capacity ...

Figure 20.14 (a) Geological 3‐D model of Hesse showing model units as well a...

Figure 20.15 (a) Simplified geological survey map of the location of input d...

Figure 20.16 Temperature at the top of the Permocarboniferous (a) and pre‐Pe...

Figure 20.17 (a) S‐grid of the Permocarboniferous, also showing following th...

Figure 20.18 Hydrothermal potential of the Permocarboniferous in the norther...

Figure 20.19 Four 2‐D visualizations of the 3‐D‐model: (a) subsurface temper...

Chapter 21

Figure 21.1 Location of the model area, showing the bedrock geology and the ...

Figure 21.2 (a) Location of the geological cross‐sections; (b) 3‐D fence dia...

Figure 21.3 (a) The calculated geological model; (b) close up of the 3‐D cal...

Figure 21.4 (a) “Hydro‐domain map” of the Lower Greensand Group (LGS) outcro...

Figure 21.5 (a) Location map identifying example cross‐section outlined belo...

Figure 21.6 (a) Calculated model of the River Chess catchment area, showing ...

Figure 21.7 3‐D geological framework model of Bremen and Bremerhaven. Units ...

Figure 21.8 Modified example of GOCAD S‐Grid. (Seiter and Panteleit 2016)

Figure 21.9 Flow diagram of stepwise model construction. Numbers correspond ...

Figure 21.10 Extract of the gridded geological framework model, showing: (a)...

Figure 21.11 Refined 3‐D geological framework models for local areas with sp...

Figure 21.12 Examples of detailed evaluations of subsurface conditions using...

Figure 21.13 Examples of three 2‐D open‐access web‐based application maps. (...

Chapter 22

Figure 22.1 Map of the Christchurch area showing the extent of the three geo...

Figure 22.2 A simplified representation of the depositional relationships an...

Figure 22.3 The Christchurch Geological Model, here viewed obliquely from th...

Figure 22.4 The extent of the Christchurch Geological Model showing the dist...

Figure 22.5 The extent of the Christchurch Geotechnical Model showing the di...

Figure 22.6 Oblique view of the Soil Behavior Type (Ic) distribution within ...

Figure 22.7 Location map of Barton‐on‐Sea within Hampshire.

Figure 22.8 Screenshot of the modeling interface showing plan, cross‐section...

Figure 22.9 Screenshot of the 3‐D model showing groundwater response horizon...

Figure 22.10 Location of Trimingham within Great Britain and 10 m resolution...

Figure 22.11 Schematic diagram of the CoastalME approach

Figure 22.12 CoastalME representation of ground elevation and sub‐surface at...

Figure 22.13 Cross‐sections of the Trimingham to Overstrand coastal sections...

Figure 22.14 Creating the 3‐D Geological Model. (a) User‐defined network of ...

Figure 22.15 Geological model horizons are grouped into material classes, fo...

Figure 22.16 Results from two cliff erosion scenarios at Trimingham. Black l...

Figure 22.17 The Île de Nantes.

Figure 22.18 Locations of 2400 boreholes from pollution and geotechnical inv...

Figure 22.19 Interpreting lithology in order to define the stratigraphic cla...

Figure 22.20 Historic infillings and accumulations of made ground materials ...

Figure 22.21 View of the 3‐D geological model after assignment of the contam...

Figure 22.22 Two‐dimensional representations of the distributions of subsoil...

Figure 22.23 Map of the City of Ljubljana, showing “Ljubljansko Polje” (Ljub...

Figure 22.24 Ljubljana study area, showing distribution of Quaternary deposi...

Figure 22.25 Cross‐section A–A' across the alluvial deposits (presented in F...

Figure 22.26 Interpreted base of the Ljubljana Field aquifer (Janža et al. 2...

Figure 22.27 Transition rates in the vertical direction generated by a Marko...

Figure 22.28 Two geostatistical realizations of the spatial distribution of ...

Figure 22.29 Locations with low hydraulic conductivity – potential perched a...

Figure 22.30 Simulated pollution spreading based on four different geostatis...

Figure 22.31 Observed and simulated concentrations of TCE in the groundwater...

Chapter 23

Figure 23.1 Cycle of risk reduction through the implementation of geotechnic...

Figure 23.2 Sand and gravel (water bearing) units in the BGS Farringdon 3‐D ...

Figure 23.3 Fault envelopes in the BGS model (Aldiss et al. 2012).

Figure 23.4 Boreholes used in the initial BGS model and additional boreholes...

Figure 23.5 Fence diagram showing the additional sections used to update the...

Figure 23.6 Predicted and observed locations of sand lenses and faults (Gaki...

Figure 23.7 Geological prediction prior to excavation vs. actual observed co...

Figure 23.8 Comparison of estimated risks to SCL tunneling posed by water‐ch...

Figure 23.9 Cross‐section along part of the Leeds–York CGM showing subsurfac...

Figure 23.10 A 4 km section of the central portion of the Leeds–York route. ...

Figure 23.11 The BGS CGM integrated within the BIM workflow. At a rail maint...

Figure 23.14 The shallow slope failures seen during a geomorphological walko...

Figure 23.12 PDF‐based documentation of a bridge reconstruction site based o...

Figure 23.13 Shallow circular slip back scars on the slope of an embankment....

Figure 23.15 Silvertown Tunnel Project is in east London. The project site m...

Figure 23.16 Silvertown Tunnel vertical profile with expected geological str...

Figure 23.17 Three‐dimensional visualization of integrated BIM infrastructur...

Figure 23.18 Example Design Sheet for the Southwestern part of Silvertown Tu...

Figure 23.19 Example project rendering of Silvertown Tunnel produced as part...

Chapter 24

Figure 24.1 The 2‐D variation in the plasticity of the London Clay across th...

Figure 24.2 The 3‐D discretized volume of the GoCAD S‐Grid model.

Figure 24.3 GoCAD S‐Grid interpolations showing VCP values at surfaces locat...

Figure 24.4 Top of the Facies London Clay Model, showing VCP distribution on...

Figure 24.5 Base surface of the Facies London Clay Model, showing areas of d...

Figure 24.6 Digitized cross‐section number 1 of Facies London Clay Model, sh...

Figure 24.7 UK map of GeoSure shrink‐swell geohazard.

Figure 24.8 Examples of the 3‐D GeoSure shrink‐swell map showing distributio...

Figure 24.9 Workflow for the assessment of aggregate resources using voxel m...

Figure 24.10 Dutch aggregate resource prospectivity maps for concrete aggreg...

Figure 24.11 Two examples of vertical proportion diagrams. (a) Represents an...

Figure 24.12 Cross‐section showing how the depositional architecture of the ...

Figure 24.13 Difference between (a) surface expression (outcrop) and (b) pos...

Figure 24.14 Map of study area to the west of Greater London, showing distri...

Figure 24.15 GIS assessment of sand and gravel resources (only central porti...

Figure 24.16 Vertical distribution of overburden, aggregate, and waste layer...

Figure 24.17 Spatial view of final voxel grid containing only cells within 3...

Figure 24.18 Probability of satisfying MAR criteria for Category A deposits ...

Figure 24.19 Maps of estimated percentage of gravel, coarse sands, fine sand...

Figure 24.20 Three‐dimensional display showing estimated percentage of grave...

Chapter 25

Figure 25.1 Location map of Bergen and the Bryggen area.

Figure 25.2 Conceptual hydrogeological model of Bryggen and the adjacent mou...

Figure 25.3 Cross‐section from the harbor (left) to the rear of Bryggen (rig...

Figure 25.4 Thickness of the cultural deposits as calculated from a 3D subsu...

Figure 25.5 Map of Bryggen and surroundings with historical hydrogeological ...

Figure 25.6 Exploded view of 3‐D subsurface model covering an area of about ...

Figure 25.7 Section view of 3‐D model with borehole‐sticks showing documente...

Figure 25.8 Visualization of a single borehole with categorized parameters f...

Figure 25.9 Three‐dimensional section view with a representation of the annu...

Figure 25.10 Location of Newcastle upon Tyne and extent of geological model ...

Figure 25.11 Fence diagram based on borehole logs used to construct the geol...

Figure 25.12 (a) Location of burns based on historical map information; (b) ...

Figure 25.13 Simplified 3‐D geological model of the area around Newcastle Un...

Figure 25.14 Classification of AMG proposed by McMillan and Powell (Ford et ...

Figure 25.15 Examples of diverse AMG types and their classification within t...

Figure 25.16 Selected examples of made and worked ground classes of AMG (For...

Figure 25.17 Selected examples of infilled ground class, showing combination...

Figure 25.18 Land use change over approximately 160 years at Trafford Park, ...

Figure 25.19 AMG mapping in the Swanscombe area, east of London using 5 m re...

Figure 25.20 Estimated AMG coverage in the Aire Valley by: (a) DigMapGB, (b)...

Figure 25.21 Location map of City of London and Tower Hamlets Boroughs.

Figure 25.22 Extent of AMG based on published BGS maps (grey outline) and bo...

Figure 25.23 Distribution of main land-use categories reflecting pre- and po...

Figure 25.24 Average thickness of AMG determined by comparing modern DEM wit...

Figure 25.25 Map showing the uppermost natural geological unit present immed...

Figure 25.26 Two 3‐D views of the uppermost natural geological unit present ...

Figure 25.27 AMG thickness calculated from borehole data: (a) pre‐1945; and ...

Chapter 26

Figure 26.1 Two screenshots of the same rockfall simulation. The slope is ca...

Figure 26.2 One‐thousand fragment rockfall simulation using discrete and var...

Figure 26.3 Evolution of 3‐D visualization techniques (Lato 2018).

Figure 26.4 Two aspects of currently available virtual reality: (a) user emp...

Figure 26.5 HoloLens model of the Giant Mine project used at a community mee...

Figure 26.6 Examples of a 3‐D geological model that are suitable for public ...

Figure 26.7 Example application of Alberta Geological Survey 3‐D models: (a)...

Figure 26.8 Example model information provided to decision‐makers: (a) 2‐D r...

Guide

Cover Page

Table of Contents

Begin Reading

Pages

iii

iv

xxi

xxii

xxiii

xxiv

xxv

xxvi

xxvii

xxviii

1

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

83

82

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

95

96

97

98

99

100

101

102

103

104

105

106

107

108

109

110

111

112

113

114

115

116

117

118

119

120

121

122

123

124

125

126

127

128

129

130

131

133

134

135

136

137

138

139

140

141

142

144

145

146

147

148

149

150

151

152

153

154

155

156

157

158

159

160

161

162

163

164

165

166

167

168

169

170

171

172

173

174

175

176

177

178

179

180

181

182

183

184

185

186

187

188

189

190

191

192

193

194

195

196

197

198

199

200

201

202

203

204

205

206

207

208

209

210

211

212

213

214

215

216

217

218

219

220

221

222

223

224

225

226

227

228

229

230

231

232

233

235

236

237

238

239

240

241

242

243

244

245

246

247

248

249

250

251

252

253

254

255

256

257

258

259

260

261

262

263

264

265

266

267

268

269

270

271

273

274

275

276

277

278

279

280

281

282

283

284

285

286

287

288

289

290

291

292

293

294

295

296

297

298

299

300

301

302

303

304

305

306

307

308

309

310

311

312

313

314

315

316

317

319

320

321

322

323

324

325

326

327

328

329

330

331

332

333

334

335

336

337

338

339

340

341

342

343

344

345

346

347

348

349

350

351

352

353

354

355

357

358

359

360

361

362

363

364

365

366

367

368

369

370

371

372

373

374

375

376

377

378

379

380

381

382

383

385

386

387

388

389

390

391

392

393

394

395

396

397

398

399

400

401

403

404

405

406

407

408

409

410

411

412

413

414

415

416

417

418

419

421

422

423

424

425

427

429

430

431

432

433

434

435

436

437

438

439

440

441

442

443

444

445

446

447

448

449

450

451

452

453

454

455

456

457

458

459

460

461

462

463

464

465

466

467

468

469

470

471

472

473

474

475

476

477

479

480

481

482

483

484

485

486

487

488

489

490

491

492

493

494

495

496

497

498

499

500

501

502

503

504

505

506

507

508

509

510

511

512

513

514

515

516

517

519

520

521

522

523

524

525

526

527

528

529

530

531

532

533

534

535

536

537

538

539

540

541

542

543

544

545

546

547

548

549

550

551

552

553

554

555

556

557

558

559

560

561

562

563

564

565

566

567

568

569

570

571

572

573

574

575

576

577

578

579

580

581

582

583

584

585

586

587

588

589

590

591

592

593

595

596

597

598

599

600

601

602

603

604

605

606

607

608

609

610

611

612

613

614

615

616

617

618

619

621

622

623

624

625

626

627

628

629

630

631

632

633

635

636

637

638

639

640

641

642

643

644

645