4.3 Article

Interpolations of Groundwater Table Elevation in Dissected Uplands

期刊

GROUND WATER
卷 50, 期 4, 页码 598-607

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-6584.2011.00889.x

关键词

-

资金

  1. USGS National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program [05HQAG0147, 06HQGR0155]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The variable elevation of the groundwater table in the St. Louis area was estimated using multiple linear regression (MLR), ordinary kriging, and cokriging as part of a regional program seeking to assess liquefaction potential. Surface water features were used to determine the minimum water table for MLR and supplement the principal variables for ordinary kriging and cokriging. By evaluating the known depth to the water and the minimum water table elevation, the MLR analysis approximates the groundwater elevation for a contiguous hydrologic system. Ordinary kriging and cokriging estimate values in unsampled areas by calculating the spatial relationships between the unsampled and sampled locations. In this study, ordinary kriging did not incorporate topographic variations as an independent variable, while cokriging included topography as a supporting covariable. Cross validation suggests that cokriging provides a more reliable estimate at known data points with less uncertainty than the other methods. Profiles extending through the dissected uplands terrain suggest that: (1) the groundwater table generated by MLR mimics the ground surface and elicits a exaggerated interpolation of groundwater elevation; (2) the groundwater table estimated by ordinary kriging tends to ignore local topography and exhibits oversmoothing of the actual undulations in the water table; and (3) cokriging appears to give the realistic water surface, which rises and falls in proportion to the overlying topography. The authors concluded that cokriging provided the most realistic estimate of the groundwater surface, which is the key variable in assessing soil liquefaction potential in unconsolidated sediments.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据