English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Open

. Creating increasingly realistic groundwater models involves theinclusion of additional geological and geophysical data in thehydrostratigraphic modeling procedure. Using multiple-point statistics (MPS)for stochastic hydrostratigraphic modeling provides a degree of flexibilitythat allows the incorporation of elaborate datasets and provides a frameworkfor stochastic hydrostratigraphic modeling. This paper focuses on comparingthree MPS methods: snesim, DS and iqsim. The MPS methods are tested andcompared on a real-world hydrogeophysical survey from Kasted in Denmark,which covers an area of 45 km 2 . A controlled test environment, similarto a synthetic test case, is constructed from the Kasted survey and is usedto compare the modeling results of the three aforementioned MPS methods. Thecomparison of the stochastic hydrostratigraphic MPS models is carried out inan elaborate scheme of visual inspection, mathematical similarity andconsistency with boreholes. Using the Kasted survey data, an example formodeling new survey areas is presented. A cognitive hydrostratigraphic modelof one area is used as a training image (TI) to create a suite of stochastichydrostratigraphic models in a new survey area. The advantage of stochasticmodeling is that detailed multiple point information from one area can beeasily transferred to another area considering uncertainty. The presented MPS methods each have their own set of advantages anddisadvantages. The DS method had average computation times of 6–7 h, whichis large, compared to iqsim with average computation times of 10–12 min.However, iqsim generally did not properly constrain the near-surface part ofthe spatially dense soft data variable. The computation time of 2–3 h forsnesim was in between DS and iqsim. The snesim implementation used here ispart of the Stanford Geostatistical Modeling Software, or SGeMS. The snesimsetup was not trivial, with numerous parameter settings, usage of multiplegrids and a search-tree database. However, once the parameters had been setit yielded comparable results to the other methods. Both iqsim and DS areeasy to script and run in parallel on a server, which is not the case forthe snesim implementation in SGeMS.

Hydrostratigraphic modeling using multiple-point statistics and airborne transient electromagnetic methods