Latest Contributions by SuzanneFaber

That is clear, wonderful, thanks!! Suzanne ... View more

Dear Andrew and Eric,  thank you for your responses. I have to admit I am a little confused about the fundamentals of this issue. But let me ask a few straightforward questions to see if I can at least understand the implications:    1. The values I see in the voxel layer do come from the EBK3D analysis. That the EBK3D didn't show them to me before is because it has made its (and our) life a bit easier (runs quick) by visualising a triangular grid and 'spreading' the range of values of the original data set over it?    2. That means that whatever export format I choose for the statistical layer (for example 'to points') I will obtain the values that I now see in my voxel layer?    3. Some of the values I obtain are nonphysical (i.e. the negative values), does this not mean something is fundamentally wrong about the statistical analysis? Especially if the values are really quite different from the original data set (for example if my data ranges from 0.1 to 80 and the voxel layer shows results between -20 and 60)?    4. Wouldn't adjusting the min/max range in the above mentioned case from -20 and 60 to 0.1 and 80 be cheating? It seems I would then be ignoring what the geostatistical analyst has told me.. Thanks again in advance! Suzanne ... View more

Hey, I actually have a question about the voxel space data. How come the range is different for the EBK3D predictions and the voxels? Especially the negative values surprise me.. Suzanne ... View more

Dear Andrew and Eric, Thanks so much, you were right! The coordinates of the voxel, EBK and data layers matched, but they didn't match with the local scene coordinate system itself (I didn't know that it also has one..). Here some pictures of my results :    Eric Krause‌ and Philip Mielke‌ thanks for your help with making this work - and even better than I thought! My next challenge will be to export the EBK3D data in a way such that I can use it as input for hydraulic conductivity fields for a Modflow model. I'm guessing the best way to go forward is to use the Layer 3D To Feature Class. I will have a look at that, but might be back to pick your brains on it again later Regards, Suzanne ... View more

Hi Phil, I am working in Local Scene.. Suzanne ... View more

Dear Eric (and Phil), I have tried again to get the isosurface, but I do not manage. I follow the steps exactly as indicated in the lesson you sent me.  I created the .nc file, but when I want to add the multi-dimensional raster layer I get the following warning: Despite this warning, it does create this menu for me  but it doesnt show me anything and tells me  I also tried right clicking on the Surfaces box and say 'create isosurface' but it doesnt do anything. Any idea what might be going wrong? Thanks...! Kind regards, Suzanne ... View more

Hi Eric, I am not sure that is the problem, if I try for example to change the symbology, I get this message: I wonder if that might also be the reason I cannot find the voxel exploration pane at all... Suzanne ... View more

Hi again Eric and Phil, regarding the voxel experience: indeed I needed to download the latest version of 2.6! I created the NetCDF file using the GA Layer 3D to NetCDF tool. I then added the voxel layer. However, when I then want to create the isosurface, nothing happens.. I think that it is trying to create the layer (at least I can 'pause the drawing' see pic) but doesnt get there.. I get no error messages or so. Any ideas what goes wrong? Regarding Eric's comment about the cross validation: Indeed the data that I put in is very course. Most data points have the 'value': 'medium grained sand'. Then there are a few locations with course sand and some with clay. The bulk of course grained sand I have given a hydraulic conductivity of 15m/d, but of course in reality these values might locally vary between say 5 and 25m/d. I will play around with the other EBK3D parameters as you suggest and also add a measurement error column in my input file and see what that does for my results. Cheers, Suzanne ... View more

Dear Eric and Phil, Again, thanks a lot for both of your inputs. For the most bottom layers of my data I had fewer than 10 data points. I have now left these layers out and it works 🙂 I looked at the predication map and used the empirical transformation and an exponential semivariogram model type (I didn't see a big decrease in the error when I used K-Bessel.). See pictures below (at 30, 50 and 59m-bg resp). I also included two screen shots of the EBK analysis and the histogram of my data. Looking at the prediction vs measurement map, the EBK results also don't seem amazing (to my unexperienced eye). I am wondering to what extend the locations of my data points have to do with that. As you can see from the top view, they are not very evenly distributed. Prediction maps:   EBK 3D analysis:   Histogram of my data: Of course now I have some new questions.. Question 1. I would love to create an isosurface in voxel space as Phil suggested, I saw the esri video on it and it looks really amazing. But how? According to the esri website I should find the option under the add data tab, but I only find the multidimensional raster layer.  I thought I start by trying out this multidimensional raster layer. I first created a netCDF file by exporting the 3D EBK results as point features, but I get an error when uploading. This might have to do with the fact that I don't know what to fill in under the 'feature to netcdf' menu.. Phil, I would be very curious to learn how you create isosurfaces in voxel experience. Question 2: The EBK supplies us with an optimal fit to the data. If I would want to create different fields (to have best- and worst case scenarios) I understand I need to look at quantile surfaces, in which I could choose to study what my outcomes may be if my measurement values are either over- or under estimated. Condition for using quantile surface is that a multivariate normal distribution can be assumed. I am not sure what that means in my case, after all, I have used the empirical transformation to be able to work around the fact that my data is not normally distributed.  Very greatful for your support! Suzanne ... View more

Hi Eric, thanks, I'll have a look at where I get to with EBK and let you know! ... View more

Dear Eric, thanks a lot for your explanation. What you explain about indicator kriging makes sense and I see that in this case, the indicator kriging did not supply me with a very trustable probability map! The data that I have, have mainly come from visual analysis of soil samples. So basically, if clay was seen/felt, I recorded clay, if sand was seen I recorded sand. I also have some data from cone penetration tests (measuring resistance, with also gives me a soil classification more than an actual hydraulic conductivity K value). I also used publicly available data on the local aquifers' conductivities. In the set of K values I created from this data, clay has a value of 0.005 m/d and sand ranged from (a little bit of) fine sand (3 m/d), through to sand (15 m/s), all the way to course (50 m/d) and very course (80m/d) sand with pebbles.  I am not sure how I could improve my data in order to get better kriging results.. but curious to hear what you think! Suzanne  ... View more

Hey Philip, thanks a lot for you elaborate reply! Actually, all I needed to do was uncheck this ground elevation surface box.. I cannot find the navigate underground checkbox you mention, but anyway problem is solved (see pic below). I tried to use the 3D EBK tool before. However, it tells me I do not have enough data to perform the analysis (see 2nd pic). If you would have an idea for a work-around around this I would be very greatful. For now, I have started my analysis in 2D: I have subdivided the data in layers and analyse each separately. The layer that I am looking at is a semi-permeable aquitard: it consists of a number of clay lenses overlaying each other. (I used indicator kriging in 2d, simply saying clay=1, sand=0) As it is a sedimentary basin, the clay lenses have been deposited in the x-y plane, which would justify my 2D analysis. However, the clay layers might be ever so slightly tilted, and by looking in 2D I might be missing continuities that will actually have a great influence on the groundwater flow. SO, if I could use 3D EBK, where one can separate the domain in smaller overlapping domains and adjust the elevation inflation factor, that would be great. 🙂 Having not enough data to do the analysis thoroughly doesn't bother me to much.., as I just want to use the analysis for finding some sort of range, a few 'this might be possible' scenarios which I can use for a few different conceptual models for the flow study. Curious what you may think about this! Suzanne ... View more

Hi Dan, silly I didn't see you posted a link there.. Meanwhile I managed with Philip's remark, simply by unchecking the ground (world elevation) box under the contents tab. Thanks again for our help! Suzanne ... View more

Hi Dan,  Thank you for the suggestion. I uploaded the data in Scene and I don't see any difference in visualisation options. By the way I am using ArcGIS pro 2.6. ... View more