OR/14/035 Model development log - Revision history

Dbk at 11:50, 10 August 2015

2015-08-10T11:50:30Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:50, 10 August 2015
Line 1:		Line 1:
	__notoc__		__notoc__
	{{OR/14/035}}		{{OR/14/035}}
	This section outlines the initial set-up of the project GIS, Borehole coding and extraction to GSI3D and the 3d modelling of the EA Tees 3d Model. A detailed modelling progress log can be found in ~~appendix~~ 1.		This section outlines the initial set-up of the project GIS, Borehole coding and extraction to GSI3D and the 3d modelling of the EA Tees 3D Model. A detailed modelling progress log can be found in [[OR/14/035 Appendix 1: Detailed model development log \|Appendix 1]].

	==Phase1: Data compilation and GIS assessment==		==Phase1: Data compilation and GIS assessment==
Line 63:		Line 63:

	==Phase 3: Lithostratigraphy and the GVS set up==		==Phase 3: Lithostratigraphy and the GVS set up==
	The GVS presented in table 1 was developed through a literature review with guidance from A Cooper. The lithostratigraphic succession is described in detail in Whitbread et al. (2013). The published geological 50k map for Stockton (Sheet 33), a range of published papers and unpublished reports were consulted to develop this regional lithostratigraphy and these sources are also recorded in Whitbread et al. (2013). Descriptions of the main modelled units are also included in the detailed model development log in Appendix 1.		The GVS presented in table 1 was developed through a literature review with guidance from A Cooper. The lithostratigraphic succession is described in detail in Whitbread et al. (2013)<ref name="Whitbread">WHITBREAD, K, BANKS, V J, BURKE, H F, COOPER, A H, GARCIA-BAJO, M and THORPE, S. 2013. 3D ''Superficial Geology and Hydrogeological Domains between West Hartlepool and Darlington. ''British Geological Survey Commercial Report (CR/13/002). </ref>. The published geological 50k map for Stockton (Sheet 33), a range of published papers and unpublished reports were consulted to develop this regional lithostratigraphy and these sources are also recorded in Whitbread et al. (2013)<ref name="Whitbread"></ref>. Descriptions of the main modelled units are also included in the detailed model development log in [[OR/14/035 Appendix 1: Detailed model development log \|Appendix 1]].

	==Phase 4: Model developemnt (summary)==		==Phase 4: Model developemnt (summary)==
Line 75:		Line 75:

	: <u>Stage 1: Framework section construction</u>		: <u>Stage 1: Framework section construction</u>
	Five framework section lines were requested by the client, one aligned along the length of the model (roughly north-south) and four aligned roughly east to west. These sections were constructed as continuations of cross-sections drawn for the Durham (south) area in previous work for the EA (Price et al. 2007). In the initial stage of the modelling, these five framework sections were correlated by modellers Helen Burke (HB), Steve Thorpe (ST) and Katie Whitbread (KW) working in conjunction with A Cooper to ensure consistent interpretation of the lithostratigraphy was applied across the model area.		Five framework section lines were requested by the client, one aligned along the length of the model (roughly north-south) and four aligned roughly east to west. These sections were constructed as continuations of cross-sections drawn for the Durham (south) area in previous work for the EA (Price et al. 2007<ref name="Price">PRICE, S J, MERRITT, J E, WHITBREAD, K, LAWLEY, R S, BANKS, V, BURKE, H, IRVING, A M and COOPER, A H. 2007. ''Superficial Geology and Hydrogeological Domains between Durham and Darlington Phase 1 (Durham South). ''British Geological Survey Internal Report CR/07/002 (Commercial in Confidence) </ref>). In the initial stage of the modelling, these five framework sections were correlated by modellers Helen Burke (HB), Steve Thorpe (ST) and Katie Whitbread (KW) working in conjunction with A Cooper to ensure consistent interpretation of the lithostratigraphy was applied across the model area.

	: <u>Stage 2: Model development</u>		: <u>Stage 2: Model development</u>
Line 85:		Line 85:

	==Phase 5: QA ==		==Phase 5: QA ==
	The Tees Model was reviewed by M Barron following standard BGS model checking procedures (<u>W:\Teams\NGM\Models\Documents\QA & Approval Docs\NGM QA Checklists\</u> <u>GSI3D_model_corp_check_8-3-13_TEMPLATE.docx</u>). From this review it was noted that the river, although defined by the OS topographic maps, didn’t fit the DTM surface, but showed some of the ‘thalweg’ sections rising and fall across the hills. This is due in part to the resolution of the DTM held at BGS (5m grid) but more likely to the resampling of the DTM to ~~50m~~. Following discussions with V Banks and S Thorpe it was decided that the river polygon and water-lines in relevant cross-sections should be removed from the model, and the underlying geology reviewed and amended where necessary. Water was retained in the estuary and off- shore areas at the north end of the model. The removal of the river polygon was undertaken by S Thorpe.		The Tees Model was reviewed by M Barron following standard BGS model checking procedures (<u>W:\Teams\NGM\Models\Documents\QA & Approval Docs\NGM QA Checklists\</u> <u>GSI3D_model_corp_check_8-3-13_TEMPLATE.docx</u>). From this review it was noted that the river, although defined by the OS topographic maps, didn’t fit the DTM surface, but showed some of the ‘thalweg’ sections rising and fall across the hills. This is due in part to the resolution of the DTM held at BGS (5 m grid) but more likely to the resampling of the DTM to 50 m. Following discussions with V Banks and S Thorpe it was decided that the river polygon and water-lines in relevant cross-sections should be removed from the model, and the underlying geology reviewed and amended where necessary. Water was retained in the estuary and off- shore areas at the north end of the model. The removal of the river polygon was undertaken by S Thorpe.

	==Phase 6: Model delivery==		==Phase 6: Model delivery==
Line 92:		Line 92:
	The final version of the GSI3D model was encrypted into the Lithoframe viewer using standard procedures.		The final version of the GSI3D model was encrypted into the Lithoframe viewer using standard procedures.

	GIS exports – envelopes (Shapefiles), grid thicknesses were also derived and formed the basis for hydrogeological domain assessment performed by V Banks and M Garcia-Bajo.		GIS exports — envelopes (Shapefiles), grid thicknesses were also derived and formed the basis for hydrogeological domain assessment performed by V Banks and M Garcia-Bajo.

			==References==


	[[category: OR/14/035 Model metadata report for the EA Tees 3d Model \| 05]]		[[category: OR/14/035 Model metadata report for the EA Tees 3d Model \| 05]]

Dbk at 13:24, 15 June 2015

2015-06-15T13:24:12Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:24, 15 June 2015
Line 95:		Line 95:


	[[category: OR/14/035 Model metadata report for the EA Tees 3d Model \| 01]]		[[category: OR/14/035 Model metadata report for the EA Tees 3d Model \| 05]]

Dbk at 10:32, 15 June 2015

2015-06-15T10:32:31Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:32, 15 June 2015
Line 56:		Line 56:

	==Phase 2: Borehole prognosis and coding==		==Phase 2: Borehole prognosis and coding==

	A review of the level of coding by ST:		A review of the level of coding by ST:

Line 63:		Line 62:
	ST performed a narrowing down exercise: from the list of boreholes coded a switch selection was made to select those that hadn’t been coded. From these 2307 the DTM value, BSTM value and borehole total depth (TD) were used to determine which boreholes penetrated the Rockhead surface. This created a file of 2472 boreholes. These boreholes were inspected to assess the quality of the borehole logs (currently some of these are not logged in the SOBI database) and were prioritised using the lines of framework sections specified by the client. The framework section lines were used to create a list of non-coded boreholes within 200m of the lines of section (280 Boreholes). Priority was given for coding of boreholes along these section lines, and to deep boreholes with high quality logs dispersed throughout the model area. Approximately 750 coded boreholes were used in the model cross-sections and many more were used to help delineate the spatial extent of units (envelopes).		ST performed a narrowing down exercise: from the list of boreholes coded a switch selection was made to select those that hadn’t been coded. From these 2307 the DTM value, BSTM value and borehole total depth (TD) were used to determine which boreholes penetrated the Rockhead surface. This created a file of 2472 boreholes. These boreholes were inspected to assess the quality of the borehole logs (currently some of these are not logged in the SOBI database) and were prioritised using the lines of framework sections specified by the client. The framework section lines were used to create a list of non-coded boreholes within 200m of the lines of section (280 Boreholes). Priority was given for coding of boreholes along these section lines, and to deep boreholes with high quality logs dispersed throughout the model area. Approximately 750 coded boreholes were used in the model cross-sections and many more were used to help delineate the spatial extent of units (envelopes).

	== ~~name~~=~~"_TOC_250008"~~ ==		==Phase 3: Lithostratigraphy and the GVS set up==

	The GVS presented in table 1 was developed through a literature review with guidance from A Cooper. The lithostratigraphic succession is described in detail in Whitbread et al. (2013). The published geological 50k map for Stockton (Sheet 33), a range of published papers and unpublished reports were consulted to develop this regional lithostratigraphy and these sources are also recorded in Whitbread et al. (2013). Descriptions of the main modelled units are also included in the detailed model development log in Appendix 1.		The GVS presented in table 1 was developed through a literature review with guidance from A Cooper. The lithostratigraphic succession is described in detail in Whitbread et al. (2013). The published geological 50k map for Stockton (Sheet 33), a range of published papers and unpublished reports were consulted to develop this regional lithostratigraphy and these sources are also recorded in Whitbread et al. (2013). Descriptions of the main modelled units are also included in the detailed model development log in Appendix 1.

	== ~~name~~=~~"_TOC_250007"~~ ==		==Phase 4: Model developemnt (summary)==

	This section provides a summary of the modelling procedure and stages of model development. A detailed log of the modelling process produced by the modelling team during model construction is included in Appendix 1. This detailed log includes information relating to individual modelling decisions (both geological and technical), as well as model checking and amendments.		This section provides a summary of the modelling procedure and stages of model development. A detailed log of the modelling process produced by the modelling team during model construction is included in Appendix 1. This detailed log includes information relating to individual modelling decisions (both geological and technical), as well as model checking and amendments.



	The project files are located in <u>W:\Teams\UD\TeesSuperficialGeology\Data\GSI3D_Modelling</u> at the time of writing. Borehole and DTM data files used in the modelling are:		The project files are located in <u>W:\Teams\UD\TeesSuperficialGeology\Data\GSI3D_Modelling</u> at the time of writing. Borehole and DTM data files used in the modelling are:
			: Ea_tees_bid.bid
			: EA_Tees_BLG_v2.blg (prioritised to remove duplicates)
			: DTM: EA_Tees_DTM_25


	~~!--[if !supportLists]-->- !--[endif]-->Ea_tees_bid.bid~~		: <u>Stage 1: Framework section construction</u>
	~~</div> <br clear="all">~~




	~~!--[if !supportLists]-->- !--[endif]-->EA_Tees_BLG_v2.blg (prioritised to remove duplicates)~~


	~~!--[if !supportLists]-->- !--[endif]-->DTM~~: ~~EA_Tees_DTM_25~~







	<u>Stage 1: Framework section construction</u>



	Five framework section lines were requested by the client, one aligned along the length of the model (roughly north-south) and four aligned roughly east to west. These sections were constructed as continuations of cross-sections drawn for the Durham (south) area in previous work for the EA (Price et al. 2007). In the initial stage of the modelling, these five framework sections were correlated by modellers Helen Burke (HB), Steve Thorpe (ST) and Katie Whitbread (KW) working in conjunction with A Cooper to ensure consistent interpretation of the lithostratigraphy was applied across the model area.		Five framework section lines were requested by the client, one aligned along the length of the model (roughly north-south) and four aligned roughly east to west. These sections were constructed as continuations of cross-sections drawn for the Durham (south) area in previous work for the EA (Price et al. 2007). In the initial stage of the modelling, these five framework sections were correlated by modellers Helen Burke (HB), Steve Thorpe (ST) and Katie Whitbread (KW) working in conjunction with A Cooper to ensure consistent interpretation of the lithostratigraphy was applied across the model area.

			: <u>Stage 2: Model development</u>
			::6 Framework sections
			::21 Model sections
			::54 Helper sections


	<u>Stage 2: Model development</u>


	~~!--[if !supportLists]-->- !--[endif]-->~~6 Framework sections


	~~!--[if !supportLists]-->- !--[endif]-->~~21 Model sections


	~~!--[if !supportLists]-->- !--[endif]-->~~54 Helper sections



	The model was constructed in three stages by modellers working consecutively on three model sub-sections; north, middle and south. These model segments were divided by the east-west orientated framework section lines. 17 regularly spaced model cross-sections were constructed to utilise the best available borehole records on an approximate grid pattern between the framework section lines and 4 boundary sections were constructed at the model edges. A further 54 helper sections were constructed during the modelling development and calculation checking.		The model was constructed in three stages by modellers working consecutively on three model sub-sections; north, middle and south. These model segments were divided by the east-west orientated framework section lines. 17 regularly spaced model cross-sections were constructed to utilise the best available borehole records on an approximate grid pattern between the framework section lines and 4 boundary sections were constructed at the model edges. A further 54 helper sections were constructed during the modelling development and calculation checking.

	== ~~name~~=~~"_TOC_250006"~~ ==		==Phase 5: QA ==

	The Tees Model was reviewed by M Barron following standard BGS model checking procedures (<u>W:\Teams\NGM\Models\Documents\QA & Approval Docs\NGM QA Checklists\</u> <u>GSI3D_model_corp_check_8-3-13_TEMPLATE.docx</u>). From this review it was noted that the river, although defined by the OS topographic maps, didn’t fit the DTM surface, but showed some of the ‘thalweg’ sections rising and fall across the hills. This is due in part to the resolution of the DTM held at BGS (5m grid) but more likely to the resampling of the DTM to 50m. Following discussions with V Banks and S Thorpe it was decided that the river polygon and water-lines in relevant cross-sections should be removed from the model, and the underlying geology reviewed and amended where necessary. Water was retained in the estuary and off- shore areas at the north end of the model. The removal of the river polygon was undertaken by S Thorpe.		The Tees Model was reviewed by M Barron following standard BGS model checking procedures (<u>W:\Teams\NGM\Models\Documents\QA & Approval Docs\NGM QA Checklists\</u> <u>GSI3D_model_corp_check_8-3-13_TEMPLATE.docx</u>). From this review it was noted that the river, although defined by the OS topographic maps, didn’t fit the DTM surface, but showed some of the ‘thalweg’ sections rising and fall across the hills. This is due in part to the resolution of the DTM held at BGS (5m grid) but more likely to the resampling of the DTM to 50m. Following discussions with V Banks and S Thorpe it was decided that the river polygon and water-lines in relevant cross-sections should be removed from the model, and the underlying geology reviewed and amended where necessary. Water was retained in the estuary and off- shore areas at the north end of the model. The removal of the river polygon was undertaken by S Thorpe.

	== ~~name~~=~~"_TOC_250005"~~ ==		==Phase 6: Model delivery==

	Following final approval, the model, together with digital images of the five framework cross sections were prepared for delivery to the client.		Following final approval, the model, together with digital images of the five framework cross sections were prepared for delivery to the client.



	The final version of the GSI3D model was encrypted into the Lithoframe viewer using standard procedures.		The final version of the GSI3D model was encrypted into the Lithoframe viewer using standard procedures.



	GIS exports – envelopes (Shapefiles), grid thicknesses were also derived and formed the basis for hydrogeological domain assessment performed by V Banks and M Garcia-Bajo.		GIS exports – envelopes (Shapefiles), grid thicknesses were also derived and formed the basis for hydrogeological domain assessment performed by V Banks and M Garcia-Bajo.

Dbk: /* Phase 2: Borehole prognosis and coding */

2015-06-15T10:25:23Z

Phase 2: Borehole prognosis and coding

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:25, 15 June 2015
Line 59:		Line 59:
	A review of the level of coding by ST:		A review of the level of coding by ST:

			Of the 9 categories of borehole records shown in Table 2, all but 2 of them provided very useful data to the project (a total of 3566 records). The top 4 codes provided 1407 boreholes of 'best coding'.

	Of the 9 categories of borehole records shown in Table 2, all but 2 of them provided very useful data to the project (a total of 3566 records). The top 4 codes provided 1407 boreholes of ~~“best coding”~~.







	ST performed a narrowing down exercise: from the list of boreholes coded a switch selection was made to select those that hadn’t been coded. From these 2307 the DTM value, BSTM value and borehole total depth (TD) were used to determine which boreholes penetrated the Rockhead surface. This created a file of 2472 boreholes. These boreholes were inspected to assess the quality of the borehole logs (currently some of these are not logged in the SOBI database) and were prioritised using the lines of framework sections specified by the client. The framework section lines were used to create a list of non-coded boreholes within 200m of the lines of section (280 Boreholes). Priority was given for coding of boreholes along these section lines, and to deep boreholes with high quality logs dispersed throughout the model area. Approximately 750 coded boreholes were used in the model cross-sections and many more were used to help delineate the spatial extent of units (envelopes).		ST performed a narrowing down exercise: from the list of boreholes coded a switch selection was made to select those that hadn’t been coded. From these 2307 the DTM value, BSTM value and borehole total depth (TD) were used to determine which boreholes penetrated the Rockhead surface. This created a file of 2472 boreholes. These boreholes were inspected to assess the quality of the borehole logs (currently some of these are not logged in the SOBI database) and were prioritised using the lines of framework sections specified by the client. The framework section lines were used to create a list of non-coded boreholes within 200m of the lines of section (280 Boreholes). Priority was given for coding of boreholes along these section lines, and to deep boreholes with high quality logs dispersed throughout the model area. Approximately 750 coded boreholes were used in the model cross-sections and many more were used to help delineate the spatial extent of units (envelopes).

Dbk: /* Phase1: Data compilation and GIS assessment */

2015-06-15T10:24:41Z

Phase1: Data compilation and GIS assessment

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:24, 15 June 2015
Line 34:		Line 34:
	Borehole_imau.shp		Borehole_imau.shp
	: Mineral Assessment borehole records (no strata)		: Mineral Assessment borehole records (no strata)


	EA_Tees_Sectionlines.shp		EA_Tees_Sectionlines.shp
	: shapefile of cross-sections drawn for proposal, these may be subject to slight adjustment		: shapefile of cross-sections drawn for proposal, these may be subject to slight adjustment


	Durham_south, Durham_Permian, Durham_North.shp		Durham_south, Durham_Permian, Durham_North.shp

Dbk at 09:12, 15 June 2015

2015-06-15T09:12:25Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:12, 15 June 2015
Line 15:		Line 15:

	EA_Tees_NotCoded_Boreholes_alongSections.shp		EA_Tees_NotCoded_Boreholes_alongSections.shp
			: boreholes within 200m buffer of section (39)

			EA_Tees_NotCoded_Boreholes_below_RH.shp
	~~!--[if !supportLists]-->– !--[endif]-->boreholes within 200m buffer of section (39)~~ EA_Tees_NotCoded_Boreholes_below_RH.shp		: shows all boreholes which penetrates the RHEM surface from the superficial thickness model (487)


	~~!--[if !supportLists]-->– !--[endif]-->~~shows all boreholes which penetrates the RHEM surface from the superficial thickness model (487)



	EA_Tees_CodedBoreholes_26-06-12.shp		EA_Tees_CodedBoreholes_26-06-12.shp
			: records extracted from SOBI/BoGe database on this date (2216). This file shows unique borehole (i.e. only id, easting and northing) the majority of these boreholes have multiple coding schemes and so need to be looked at in more detail. Prioritisation tool from ST?

	~~!--[if !supportLists]-->– !--[endif]-->~~records extracted from SOBI/BoGe database on this date (2216). This file shows unique borehole (i.e. only id, easting and northing) the majority of these boreholes have multiple coding schemes and so need to be looked at in more detail. Prioritisation tool from ST?



	XYTess_Sherbore_ToRock.shp		XYTess_Sherbore_ToRock.shp
			: supplied by Katie Whitbread. Boreholes that penetrate Rockhead using the above procedure

	~~!--[if !supportLists]-->– !--[endif]-->~~supplied by Katie Whitbread. Boreholes that penetrate Rockhead using the above procedure



	EA_Tees_Sobi_overSSG.shp		EA_Tees_Sobi_overSSG.shp
			: all boreholes that overly the outcrop of SSG (5431)

			EA_Tees_Sobi.shp
			: all boreholes within project area (7066)

	~~!--[if !supportLists]-->– !--[endif]-->all boreholes that overly the outcrop of SSG~~ (~~5431~~) ~~EA_Tees_Sobi.shp~~		Borehole_imau.shp
			: Mineral Assessment borehole records (no strata)


	~~!--[if !supportLists]-->– !--[endif]-->all boreholes within project area (7066) Borehole_imau.shp~~		EA_Tees_Sectionlines.shp
			: shapefile of cross-sections drawn for proposal, these may be subject to slight adjustment

	~~!--[if !supportLists]-->– !--[endif]-->Mineral Assessment borehole records (no strata)~~ EA_Tees_Sectionlines.shp
	~~</div> <br clear="all"> <div>~~
	~~!--[if !supportLists]-->– !--[endif]-->~~shapefile of cross-sections drawn for proposal, these may be subject to slight adjustment



	Durham_south, Durham_Permian, Durham_North.shp		Durham_south, Durham_Permian, Durham_North.shp
			: three files containing sections from Durham EA model

			EA_Tees_Projectarea.shp
			: currently agreed project area

	~~!--[if !supportLists]-->– !--[endif]-->three files containing sections from Durham EA model EA_Tees_Projectarea.shp~~		SSG_outcrop.shp
			: – outcrop pattern of SSG, supplied by KW and VB

	~~!--[if !supportLists]-->– !--[endif]-->currently agreed project area~~ SSG_outcrop.shp



	– outcrop pattern of SSG, supplied by KW and VB ~~Boreholes layer from GDI~~



	~~Geology layer from GDI Topo base maps from GDI~~



			Boreholes layer from GDI
			Geology layer from GDI
			Topo base maps from GDI
	EA_Tees_25m_DTM_ascii.asc		EA_Tees_25m_DTM_ascii.asc
			: grid generated in GSI3D using Baldearth Model

			Superficial Thickness layer from GDI

	~~!--[if !supportLists]-->– !--[endif]-->grid generated in GSI3D using Baldearth Model Superficial Thickness layer from GDI~~		==Phase 2: Borehole prognosis and coding==

	== ~~name="_TOC_250009"~~ ==

	A review of the level of coding by ST:		A review of the level of coding by ST:

Dbk: Created page with "notoc {{OR/14/035}} This section outlines the initial set-up of the project GIS, Borehole coding and extraction to GSI3D and the 3d modelling of the EA Tees 3d Model. A de..."

2015-06-15T09:06:53Z

Created page with "__notoc__ {{OR/14/035}} This section outlines the initial set-up of the project GIS, Borehole coding and extraction to GSI3D and the 3d modelling of the EA Tees 3d Model. A de..."

New page

__notoc__
{{OR/14/035}}
This section outlines the initial set-up of the project GIS, Borehole coding and extraction to GSI3D and the 3d modelling of the EA Tees 3d Model. A detailed modelling progress log can be found in appendix 1.

==Phase1: Data compilation and GIS assessment==
The project area was defined following meetings with the client (EA). An initial project area shapefile was drawn by ST to include the full extent of Sherwood Sandstone outcrop between West Hartlepool in the north-east and Darlington in the south-west.

Boreholes recorded in SOBI were queried for the project area, with a total of 7066 borehole records, of which 5431 fall directly within the outcrop of the Sherwood Sandstone. In order to prioritise deep boreholes, that record the full sequence of superficial deposits, for coding, a method was derived to identify boreholes that penetrate to rockhead using ARC GIS tools. This process should be viewed carefully, as it can include or exclude some boreholes that may prove useful.
# Clip the SOBI borehole shapefile and the superficial thickness (BSTM) models to the outline of the Sherwood sandstone (derived from the 250k map)
# Using the extract values to points function add the total superficial deposits thickness from the BSTM (basic sediment thickness) model to the borehole file
# Open the dbf file in Excel and used the IF function to select only those boreholes with total length (LengthC) greater than the sediment thickness from the BSTM model, and create a new dbf file.
# Create a ‘boreholes to rockhead’ shapefile from the new dbf.

The following is a list and description of shapefiles created or viewed within the project GIS (EA_Tees_Superficial.mxd):

EA_Tees_NotCoded_Boreholes_alongSections.shp

!--[if !supportLists]-->– !--[endif]-->boreholes within 200m buffer of section (39) EA_Tees_NotCoded_Boreholes_below_RH.shp

!--[if !supportLists]-->– !--[endif]-->shows all boreholes which penetrates the RHEM surface from the superficial thickness model (487)

EA_Tees_CodedBoreholes_26-06-12.shp

!--[if !supportLists]-->– !--[endif]-->records extracted from SOBI/BoGe database on this date (2216). This file shows unique borehole (i.e. only id, easting and northing) the majority of these boreholes have multiple coding schemes and so need to be looked at in more detail. Prioritisation tool from ST?

XYTess_Sherbore_ToRock.shp

!--[if !supportLists]-->– !--[endif]-->supplied by Katie Whitbread. Boreholes that penetrate Rockhead using the above procedure

EA_Tees_Sobi_overSSG.shp

!--[if !supportLists]-->– !--[endif]-->all boreholes that overly the outcrop of SSG (5431) EA_Tees_Sobi.shp

!--[if !supportLists]-->– !--[endif]-->all boreholes within project area (7066) Borehole_imau.shp

!--[if !supportLists]-->– !--[endif]-->Mineral Assessment borehole records (no strata) EA_Tees_Sectionlines.shp
</div> <br clear="all"> <div>
!--[if !supportLists]-->– !--[endif]-->shapefile of cross-sections drawn for proposal, these may be subject to slight adjustment

Durham_south, Durham_Permian, Durham_North.shp

!--[if !supportLists]-->– !--[endif]-->three files containing sections from Durham EA model EA_Tees_Projectarea.shp

!--[if !supportLists]-->– !--[endif]-->currently agreed project area SSG_outcrop.shp

– outcrop pattern of SSG, supplied by KW and VB Boreholes layer from GDI

Geology layer from GDI Topo base maps from GDI

EA_Tees_25m_DTM_ascii.asc

!--[if !supportLists]-->– !--[endif]-->grid generated in GSI3D using Baldearth Model Superficial Thickness layer from GDI

== name="_TOC_250009" ==

A review of the level of coding by ST:

Of the 9 categories of borehole records shown in Table 2, all but 2 of them provided very useful data to the project (a total of 3566 records). The top 4 codes provided 1407 boreholes of “best coding”.

ST performed a narrowing down exercise: from the list of boreholes coded a switch selection was made to select those that hadn’t been coded. From these 2307 the DTM value, BSTM value and borehole total depth (TD) were used to determine which boreholes penetrated the Rockhead surface. This created a file of 2472 boreholes. These boreholes were inspected to assess the quality of the borehole logs (currently some of these are not logged in the SOBI database) and were prioritised using the lines of framework sections specified by the client. The framework section lines were used to create a list of non-coded boreholes within 200m of the lines of section (280 Boreholes). Priority was given for coding of boreholes along these section lines, and to deep boreholes with high quality logs dispersed throughout the model area. Approximately 750 coded boreholes were used in the model cross-sections and many more were used to help delineate the spatial extent of units (envelopes).

== name="_TOC_250008" ==

The GVS presented in table 1 was developed through a literature review with guidance from A Cooper. The lithostratigraphic succession is described in detail in Whitbread et al. (2013). The published geological 50k map for Stockton (Sheet 33), a range of published papers and unpublished reports were consulted to develop this regional lithostratigraphy and these sources are also recorded in Whitbread et al. (2013). Descriptions of the main modelled units are also included in the detailed model development log in Appendix 1.

== name="_TOC_250007" ==

This section provides a summary of the modelling procedure and stages of model development. A detailed log of the modelling process produced by the modelling team during model construction is included in Appendix 1. This detailed log includes information relating to individual modelling decisions (both geological and technical), as well as model checking and amendments.

The project files are located in <u>W:\Teams\UD\TeesSuperficialGeology\Data\GSI3D_Modelling</u> at the time of writing. Borehole and DTM data files used in the modelling are:

!--[if !supportLists]-->- !--[endif]-->Ea_tees_bid.bid
</div> <br clear="all">

!--[if !supportLists]-->- !--[endif]-->EA_Tees_BLG_v2.blg (prioritised to remove duplicates)

!--[if !supportLists]-->- !--[endif]-->DTM: EA_Tees_DTM_25

<u>Stage 1: Framework section construction</u>

Five framework section lines were requested by the client, one aligned along the length of the model (roughly north-south) and four aligned roughly east to west. These sections were constructed as continuations of cross-sections drawn for the Durham (south) area in previous work for the EA (Price et al. 2007). In the initial stage of the modelling, these five framework sections were correlated by modellers Helen Burke (HB), Steve Thorpe (ST) and Katie Whitbread (KW) working in conjunction with A Cooper to ensure consistent interpretation of the lithostratigraphy was applied across the model area.

<u>Stage 2: Model development</u>

!--[if !supportLists]-->- !--[endif]-->6 Framework sections

!--[if !supportLists]-->- !--[endif]-->21 Model sections

!--[if !supportLists]-->- !--[endif]-->54 Helper sections

The model was constructed in three stages by modellers working consecutively on three model sub-sections; north, middle and south. These model segments were divided by the east-west orientated framework section lines. 17 regularly spaced model cross-sections were constructed to utilise the best available borehole records on an approximate grid pattern between the framework section lines and 4 boundary sections were constructed at the model edges. A further 54 helper sections were constructed during the modelling development and calculation checking.

== name="_TOC_250006" ==

The Tees Model was reviewed by M Barron following standard BGS model checking procedures (<u>W:\Teams\NGM\Models\Documents\QA & Approval Docs\NGM QA Checklists\</u> <u>GSI3D_model_corp_check_8-3-13_TEMPLATE.docx</u>). From this review it was noted that the river, although defined by the OS topographic maps, didn’t fit the DTM surface, but showed some of the ‘thalweg’ sections rising and fall across the hills. This is due in part to the resolution of the DTM held at BGS (5m grid) but more likely to the resampling of the DTM to 50m. Following discussions with V Banks and S Thorpe it was decided that the river polygon and water-lines in relevant cross-sections should be removed from the model, and the underlying geology reviewed and amended where necessary. Water was retained in the estuary and off- shore areas at the north end of the model. The removal of the river polygon was undertaken by S Thorpe.

== name="_TOC_250005" ==

Following final approval, the model, together with digital images of the five framework cross sections were prepared for delivery to the client.

The final version of the GSI3D model was encrypted into the Lithoframe viewer using standard procedures.

GIS exports – envelopes (Shapefiles), grid thicknesses were also derived and formed the basis for hydrogeological domain assessment performed by V Banks and M Garcia-Bajo.

[[category: OR/14/035 Model metadata report for the EA Tees 3d Model | 01]]