Yun-fei Bai; Zhi-jun Li; Qing Ru; Bo-rui Wang; Jia-jun Li

doi:10.26599/JGSE.2026.9280096

doi: 10.26599/JGSE.2026.9280096

^{1, 2},
^{1, 2, ,},
^{1, 2},
^{1, 2},
^{1, 2}

计量
- 文章访问数: 11
- HTML全文浏览量: 4
- PDF下载量: 0
- 被引次数: 0
出版历程
- 收稿日期: 2024-09-22
- 录用日期: 2026-03-27
- 网络出版日期: 2026-10-10
- 刊出日期: 2026-12-15

Uncertainty analysis of elevation data based on groundwater modeling system: A case study of Zhaozhou County, China

Yun-fei Bai^{1, 2},
Zhi-jun Li^{1, 2
, ,},
Qing Ru^{1, 2},
Bo-rui Wang^{1, 2},
Jia-jun Li^{1, 2}

1.
School of Hydraulic and Electric-Power, Heilongjiang University, Harbin 150080, China
2.
Institute of Groundwater in Cold Regions, Heilongjiang University, Harbin 150080, China

More Information

Corresponding author: lizhijun78@163.com

摘要

- /
- /
- /
- /
Abstract: This study takes Zhaozhou County in the Songnen Plain (a plain area with sparse borehole data) as the study area, and aims to address the issue of elevation data sources' impact on groundwater numerical simulation by comparatively analyzing the application effects of the Shuttle Radar Topography Mission Digital Elevation Model 90M (SRTM DEM 90M) and interpolated elevation derived from 25 actual boreholes and 14 virtual boreholes (synthetic borehole points derived from DEM data and corrected using nearby measured boreholes). The results show that: The elevation of SRTM DEM 90M can reflect regional microtopographic features; borehole interpolation has single-point errors (−5 m to 10 m) and interpolation uncertainty, and the over-smoothed terrain leads to a relative deviation of 40%–50% in unsaturated zone thickness in specific areas, which further results in a maximum reduction of 93% in evaporation (from 93.92 m³/d to 6.34 m³/d). Regarding simulation accuracy, the traditional water level dynamic fitting of both models meets the required standards, but the Nash-Sutcliffe Efficiency (NSE) value of water level fitting for the borehole model is negative, while the statistical indicators of the SRTM model meet the standards. This study confirms that: (1) the "parameter combination effect" plays a dominant role in simulation: Simulation results are essentially the integrated product of multi-parameter interaction; (2) in borehole-sparse areas similar to the Songnen Plain, SRTM DEM 90M can replace borehole interpolation.
- Groundwater /
- Digital Elevation Model /
- Borehole interpolation /
- Simulation accuracy /
- Parameter combination effect

HTML全文

Figure 1. Geographical map of the study area. (a) geographical location of the Songnen Plain and provincial administrative boundaries; (b) location of Zhaozhou County (the study area) within the Songnen Plain

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

Figure 2. The information on topographic elevation, township distribution, groundwater flow direction, and A-A' hydrogeological profile of the study area. (a) topographic elevation and township distribution; (b) groundwater flow direction; (c) A-A' hydrogeological profile

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

Figure 3. Three-dimensional geological profile

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

Figure 4. Aquifer system profile

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

Figure 5. Boundary conditions of the study area

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

Figure 6. Three-dimensional odel grid

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

Figure 7. Hydrological parameters zoning

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

Figure 8. Distribution of observation wells and simulated water level

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

Figure 9. Comparison chart of computed (red) and observed (black) water levels

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

Figure 10. Scatter Plot with Fit Line

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

Figure 11. Local zoning for G1 and G2

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

Figure 12. Distribution of actual and virtual boreholes

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

Figure 13. Surface elevation comparison (left - SRTM DEM, right - Borehole elevation)

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

Figure 14. Comparison of simulation results

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

Figure 15. Statistical indicator comparison chart (left - SRTM DEM, right - Borehole elevation)

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

Figure 16. Comparison of spatial distribution of unsaturated zone thickness (left - SRTM DEM, right - Borehole elevation).

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

Figure 17. Lithology configuration difference

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

Table 1. Hydraulic parameters values

Type of aquifer	Parameter partitioning	K_h (m/d)	K_v (m/d)	S_y	S_s (1/m)	Effective porosity
Unconfined aquifer	Ⅰ	4	0.4	0.1		0.3
	Ⅱ-Ⅳ	6	0.6	0.1		0.3
	Ⅴ	8	0.8	0.1		0.3
Aquitard		0.001	0.0001		0.000001	0.3
Notes: The starting head in the model uses the water level data observed in the observation wells on January 1,2012.

下载: 导出CSV

Table 2. Monthly rainfall and evaporation in 2012

Month	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12
Rainfall (mm)	0.1	1.6	11.6	27.9	11.7	99.9	118.4	48.5	68.6	36.2	31.6	9.8
Evaporation (mm)	11.8	27	91.1	228.3	320.1	270	213.7	177.2	148.2	112.2	43.1	16.5

下载: 导出CSV

Table 3. Agricultural irrigation volume

Township	Area (km²)	Irrigation volume (10⁴ m³)	Recharge rate (m/d)
Shuangfa Township	145.52	151.7	0.000011
Tuogu Township	184.07	166.9	0.0000096
Zhaozhou Town	200.51	390.7	0.0000206
Yongle Town	175.88	185.6	0.0000112
Xinfu Township	358.79	333.1	0.0000098
Xingcheng Town	340.54	287.8	0.0000089
Fengle Town	132.2	174.7	0.000014
Yongsheng Township	136.03	164.7	0.0000128
Yushu Township	184.28	186.5	0.0000107
Chaoyanggou Town	156.05	189.7	0.0000128
Chaoyang Township	131.64	147.8	0.0000119
Erjing Town	230.37	297.7	0.0000137
Weixing Breeding Farm	85.06	60.1	0.0000075
Le Yuan Township	25.26	22.9	0.0000096

下载: 导出CSV

Table 4. Main coefficients for the study area

Study area/km²	Rainfall infiltration recharge factor	Irrigation infiltration recharge factor	Soil evaporation coefficient
2,445	0.189	0.13	0.042

下载: 导出CSV

Table 5. Hydrogeological parameter calibration results

Parameter partitioning	Hydraulic conductivity (m/d)	Specific yield
Ⅰ	4.57	0.06
Ⅱ	6.35	0.08
Ⅲ	7.64	0.12
Ⅳ	6.42	0.09
Ⅴ	8.95	0.14

下载: 导出CSV

Table 6. Ⅵ and Ⅶ, hydrological parameter calibration results

Parameter partitioning	Hydraulic conductivity (m/d)	Specific yield
Ⅵ	7.94	0.11
Ⅶ	7.89	0.11

下载: 导出CSV

Table 7. Basis for the layout of virtual boreholes

Type	Virtual borehole numbering
Information gap areas	XN1, XN2, XN3, XN4, XN11
Areas with high topographic gradient (areas with distinct color transitions in Fig. 12)	XN9, XN10, XN12, XN13
Boundary areas of the study area	XN5, XN6, XN7, XN8, XN14

下载: 导出CSV

Table 8. Hydrogeological parameter data

Parameter partitioning	Hydraulic conductivity (m/d)	Specific yield
Ⅰ	2.46	0.06
Ⅱ	4.88	0.07
Ⅲ	5.45	0.11
Ⅳ	5.31	0.08
Ⅴ	6.87	0.12

下载: 导出CSV

Table 9. Analysis of unsaturated zone thickness

Position	SRTM DEM thickness (m)	Borehole model thickness (m)	Relative deviation (%)
Northeast P1	8.2	12.3	50.0
Western P2	6.5	9.1	40.0

下载: 导出CSV

Table 10. Variation of ET flow out with unsaturated zone thickness

Type	Values
Unsaturated zone thickness (m)	6.5	8	9	9.1	10
ET Flow Out (m³/d)	93.92	30.68	7.14	6.34	0

下载: 导出CSV

Table 11. Comparison of lithology-hydraulic parameters of G9 unsaturated zone

Type	SRTM DEM model	Borehole elevation model
Lithology of unsaturated zone	Fine sand	Silt, fine sand
Hydraulic conductivity (m/d)	7.64	5.45

下载: 导出CSV

参考文献(32)

Al-Areedhi HH. 2019. Modelling of groundwater flow for the Iraqi Aquifers. Ph. D. Thesis, Iraq: University of Technology.

Beven K. 1989. Changing ideas in hydrology — The case of physically-based models. Journal of Hydrology, 105(1-2): 157−172. DOI: 10.1016/0022-1694(89)90101-7.

Baalousha HM. 2012. Modelling surface-groundwater interaction in the Ruataniwha basin, Hawke's Bay, New Zealand. Environmental Earth Sciences, 66: 285−294. DOI: 10.1007/s12665-011-1238-y.

Borgia A, Cattaneo L, Marconi D, et al. 2011. Using a MODFLOW grid, generated with GMS, to solve a transport problem with TOUGH2 in complex geological environments: The intertidal deposits of the Venetian Lagoon. Computers & Geosciences, 37(6): 783−790. DOI: 10.1016/j.cageo.2010.11.007.

Chen Z, Huang JT, Zhan HB, et al. 2022. Optimization schemes for deep foundation pit dewatering under complicated hydrogeological conditions using MODFLOW-USG. Engineering Geology, 303: 106653. DOI: 10.1016/j.enggeo.2022.106653.

Chepkemoi A, Home PG, Raude JM, et al. 2023. Modeling of groundwater potential in Kericho County, Kenya, using GMS_MODFLOW. Scientific African, 19: e01492. DOI: 10.1016/j.sciaf.2022.e01492.

Cromwell G, Sweetkind DS, Densmore JN, et al. 2022. Hydrogeologic characterization of the San Antonio Creek Valley watershed, Santa Barbara County, California. Scientific Investigations Report 2022-5001, Groundwater Availability and Use Assessments. US Geological Survey. DOI: 10.3133/sir20225001.

Enemark T, Madsen RB, Sonnenborg TO, et al. 2024. Incorporating interpretation uncertainties from deterministic 3D hydrostratigraphic models in groundwater models. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 28: 505−523. DOI: 10.5194/hess-28-505-2024.

Gaaloul N. 2008. Integrated management of the ground water resources a case study in the Cap-Bon plain in Tunisia. La Houille Blanche, 94(5): 38−44. DOI: 10.1051/lhb:2008052.

Gao YH, Shen JH, Chen L, et al. 2023. Influence of underground space development mode on the groundwater flow field in Xiong'an new area. Journal of Groundwater Science and Engineering, 11: 68−80. DOI: 10.26599/jgse.2023.9280007.

He YJ, Wang YY, Liu Y, et al. 2024. Focus on the nonlinear infiltration process in deep vadose zone. Earth-Science Reviews, 252: 104719. DOI: 10.1016/j.earscirev.2024.104719.

Hunt RJ, Doherty J, Tonkin MJ. 2007. Are models too simple? Arguments for increased parameterization. Ground water, 45(3): 254−262. DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-6584.2007.00316.x.

Harbaugh AW. 2005. MODFLOW-2005: The U. S. Geological Survey modular ground-water model--the ground-water flow process. Techniques and Methods 6-A16. DOI: 10.3133/tm6A16.

Høyer AS, Jørgensen F, Sandersen PBE, et al. 2015. 3D geological modelling of a complex buried-valley network delineated from borehole and AEM data. Journal of Applied Geophysics, 122: 94−102. DOI: 10.1016/j.jappgeo.2015.09.004.

Konikow LF, Bredehoeft JD. 1992. Ground-water models cannot be validated. Advances in Water Resources, 15: 75−83. DOI: 10.1016/0309-1708(92)90033-X.

Kawo NS, Korus J, Gulbrandsen ML. 2023. Multiple-point statistical modeling of three-dimensional glacial aquifer heterogeneity for improved groundwater management. Hydrogeology Journal, 31: 1525−1546. DOI: 10.1007/s10040-023-02658-x.

Kheirandish M, Rahimi H, Kamaliardakani M, et al. 2020. Obtaining the effect of sewage network on groundwater quality using MT3DMS code: Case study on Bojnourd plain. Groundwater for Sustainable Development, 11: 100439. DOI: 10.1016/j.gsd.2020.100439.

Korus JT, Joeckel RM. 2022. Sandstone-body geometry and hydrostratigraphy of the northern High Plains Aquifer system, USA. Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology and Hydrogeology, 55: 18. DOI: 10.1144/qjegh2021-171.

Langevin CD, Provost AM, Panday S, et al. 2022. Documentation for the MODFLOW 6 Groundwater Transport Model. DOI: 10.3133/tm6A61.

Li ZX, Xiao J, Wan JW, et al. 2024. A dynamic modeling approach to predict water inflow during tunnel excavation in relatively uniform rock masses. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 146: 105568. DOI: 10.1016/j.tust.2024.105668.

Lyazidi R, Hessane MA, Moutei JF, et al. 2020. Developing a methodology for estimating the groundwater levels of coastal aquifers in the Gareb-Bourag plains, Morocco embedding the visual MODFLOW techniques in groundwater modeling system. Groundwater for Sustainable Development, 11: 100471. DOI: 10.1016/j.gsd.2020.100471.

Mcdonald MG, Harbaugh AW. 1988. A modular three-dimensional finite difference groundwater flow model.

Niswonger RG, Allander KK, Jeton AE. 2014. Collaborative modelling and integrated decision support system analysis of a developed terminal lake basin. Journal of Hydrology, 517: 521−537. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2014.05.043.

Panday S, Langevin CD, Niswonger RG, et al. 2013. MODFLOW–USG version 1: An unstructured grid version of MODFLOW for simulating groundwater flow and tightly coupled processes using a control volume finite-difference formulation.Techniques and Methods 6-A45. DOI: 10.3133/tm6A45.

Qiu SW, Liang XJ, Xiao CL, et al. 2015. Numerical simulation of groundwater flow in a river valley basin in Jilin Urban Area, China. Water, 7: 5768−5787. DOI: 10.3390/w7105768.

Sahu SK, Jhariya DC. 2023. 3D-Mathematical model to simulate groundwater flow and sulfate concentration in Tantaria watershed, Bemetara district, Chhattisgarh, India. Environment Development and Sustainability, 25: 1667−1683. DOI: 10.1007/s10668-022-02115-x.

Wellmann F, Caumon G. 2018. 3-D Structural geological models: Concepts, methods, and uncertainties. In: SCHMELZBACH, C. (ed.) Advances in Geophysics, 59. San Diego: Elsevier Academic Press Inc.

Woolfenden LR, Engott JA, Larsen J, et al. 2022. Simulation of groundwater and surface-water resources of the San Antonio Creek Valley watershed, Santa Barbara County, California. US Geological Survey. DOI: 10.3133/sir20215139.

Yang FR, Lee CH, Kung WJ, et al. 2009. The impact of tunneling construction on the hydrogeological environment of "Tseng-Wen Reservoir Transbasin Diversion Project" in Taiwan. Engineering Geology, 103: 39−58. DOI: 10.1016/j.enggeo.2008.07.012.

Zangeneh M, Tabrizi MS, Khosrojerdi A, et al. 2023. Developing a decision-making model for improving the groundwater balance to control land subsidence. Soil and Water Research, 18: 55−65. DOI: 10.17221/57/2022-swr.

Zhai HT, Wang JC, Lu YC, et al. 2023. Prediction of the mine water inflow of coal-bearing rock series based on well group pumping. Water, 15(20): 3680. DOI: 10.3390/w15203680.

Zhang Q, Yang QK, Cheng J, et al. 2018. Characteristics of 3" SRTM Errors in China. Geomatics and Information Science of Wuhan University, 43(05): 684−690. (in Chinese) DOI: 10.13203/j.whugis20160347.

[1]	Li-qiang Ge, Xin Yuan, Liu Yang2025: Application of metagenomics in the study of groundwater microorganisms, Journal of Groundwater Science and Engineering, 13, 90-100. doi: 10.26599/JGSE.2025.9280041
[2]	Hanane Mebarki, Noureddine Maref, Mohammed El-Amine Dris2024: Modelling the monthly hydrological balance using Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) model: A case study of the Wadi Mina upstream watershed, Journal of Groundwater Science and Engineering, 12, 161-177. doi: 10.26599/JGSE.2024.9280013
[3]	Vinay Kumar Gautam, Mahesh Kothari, P.K. Singh, S.R. Bhakar, K.K. Yadav2022: Analysis of groundwater level trend in Jakham River Basin of Southern Rajasthan, Journal of Groundwater Science and Engineering, 10, 1-9. doi: 10.19637/j.cnki.2305-7068.2022.01.001
[4]	Chen She-ming, Liu Hong-wei, Liu Fu-tian, Miao Jin-jie, Guo Xu, Zhang Zhou, Jiang Wan-jun2022: Using time series analysis to assess tidal effect on coastal groundwater level in Southern Laizhou Bay, China, Journal of Groundwater Science and Engineering, 10, 292-301. doi: 10.19637/j.cnki.2305-7068.2022.03.007
[5]	KHELFAOUI Hakim, DAJBRI Larbi, LAKHAL Fatima Zohra, CHAFFAI Hicham, HANI Azzedine, SAYAD Lamine2020: Determination of the origin of mineralization and groundwater salinity in the Adrar region in the southwest of Algeria, Journal of Groundwater Science and Engineering, 8, 158-171. doi: 10.19637/j.cnki.2305-7068.2020.02.007
[6]	Muhammad Juandi2020: Water sustainability model for estimation of groundwater availability in Kemuning district, Riau-Indonesia, Journal of Groundwater Science and Engineering, 8, 20-29. doi: 10.19637/j.cnki.2305-7068.2020.01.003
[7]	LI Wen-yon, FU Li, ZHU Zheng-feng2019: Numerical simulation and land subsidence control for deep foundation pit dewatering of Longyang Road Station on Shanghai Metro Line 18, Journal of Groundwater Science and Engineering, 7, 133-144. doi: 10.19637/j.cnki.2305-7068.2019.02.004
[8]	LI Xiao-hang, WANG Rui, LI Jian-feng2018: Study on hydrochemical characteristics and formation mechanism of shallow groundwater in eastern Songnen Plain, Journal of Groundwater Science and Engineering, 6, 161-170. doi: 10.19637/j.cnki.2305-7068.2018.03.001
[9]	ZHOU Xun2017: Arsenic distribution and source in groundwater of Yangtze River Delta economic region, China, Journal of Groundwater Science and Engineering, 5, 343-353.
[10]	Eunhee Lee, Kyoochul Ha, Nguyen Thi Minh Ngoc, Adichat Surinkum, Ramasamy Jayakumar, Yongje Kim, Kamaludin Bin Hassan2017: Groundwater status and associated issues in the Mekong-Lancang River Basin: International collaborations to achieve sustainable groundwater resources, Journal of Groundwater Science and Engineering, 5, 1-13.
[11]	Pezhman ROUDGARMI, Ebrahim FARAHANI2017: Investigation of groundwater quantitative change, Tehran Province, Iran, Journal of Groundwater Science and Engineering, 5, 278-285.
[12]	Khongsab Somphone, OunakoneKone Xayviliya2017: Climate change and groundwater resources in Lao PDR, Journal of Groundwater Science and Engineering, 5, 53-58.
[13]	BAI Bing, CHENG Yan-pei, JIANG Zhong-cheng, ZHANG Cheng2017: Climate change and groundwater resources in China, Journal of Groundwater Science and Engineering, 5, 44-52.
[14]	Chamroeun SOK, Sokuntheara CHOUP2017: Climate change and groundwater resources in Cambodia, Journal of Groundwater Science and Engineering, 5, 31-43.
[15]	LIU Qi, JIANG Si-min, PU Ye-feng, ZHANG Wei2016: Hydro-geochemical simulation of the mixing balance of exploitation and reinjection of geothermal fluid, Journal of Groundwater Science and Engineering, 4, 81-87.
[16]	ZHANG Chun-chao, WANG Wen-Ke, SUN Yi-bo, LI Xiang-quan，HOU Xin-wei2015: Processes of hydrogeochemical evolution of groundwater in the Guanzhong Basin, China, Journal of Groundwater Science and Engineering, 3, 136-146.
[17]	Liang ZHU, Wei-dong KANG, Ji-chao SUN, Jing-tao LIU2014: Quantitative Calculation of Groundwater Vulnerability Assessment Based on Quantification Theory III, Journal of Groundwater Science and Engineering, 2, 78-85.
[18]	MA Shao-bing, ZHOU Jun, LIANG Peng, SU Yao-ming2014: Characteristics-based classification research on typical petroleum contaminants of groundwater, Journal of Groundwater Science and Engineering, 2, 41-47.
[19]	Jingli Shao, Yali Cui, Yunzhang Zhao2013: A Study on Infiltration and Groundwater Development in the Influent Zone of the Perched Lower Yellow River, Journal of Groundwater Science and Engineering, 1, 46-53.
[20]	Jiansheng Shi, Hongtao Liu, Zhiyuan Liu, Tieliu Chen2013: Application of the “Accurate Control Groundwater Resources” Theory in Containment of Groundwater Resource Exhaustion Trend, Journal of Groundwater Science and Engineering, 1, 1-10.