Journal of Geographical Systems

, Volume 9, Issue 3, pp 289–310 | Cite as

Using fuzzy logic for modeling aquifer architecture

  • D. M. AllenEmail author
  • N. Schuurman
  • Q. Zhang
Original Article


Modeling the geologic architecture of an aquifer and visualizing its three-dimensional structure require lithologic data recorded during well drilling. Uncertainties in layer boundaries arise due to questionable quality of drilling records, mixing during the drilling process, which results in blurred contacts, and natural heterogeneity of the geologic materials. An approach for modeling and visualizing the spatial distribution of aquifer units three-dimensionally based on fuzzy set theory is developed. An indicator is defined for evaluating the possibility of aquifer existence based on fuzzy set theory and probability principles. A specific interpolation method for aquifer 3D spatial distribution requiring only very basic borehole log data is proposed. A 3D modeling and visualization system for aquifers is also developed, which can implement basic GIS functions, like borehole identification and cross-section creation. The methodology developed is tested using real borehole lithology data available for an aquifer in British Columbia, Canada.


Hydraulic Conductivity Material Type Silty Sand Borehole Data Grand Fork 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Abourifassi M, Marino MA (1984) Cokriging of aquifer transmissivities from field measurements of transmissivity and specific capacity. Math Geol 16:19–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alexander JW, Gibson LJ (1979) Economic geography. Prentice-Hall, Englewood CliffsGoogle Scholar
  3. Allen DM, Scibek J, Whitfield P, Wei M (2004) Climate change and groundwater: summary report. Final report prepared for natural resources Canada, Climate Change Action Fund, March 2004, 404 pp, Forks
  4. Banai R (1993) Fuzziness in geographical information systems: contributions from the analytic hierarchy process. Int J Geograph Inform Syst 7(4):315–329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bear J (1972) Dynamics of fluids in porous media. Dover, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  6. Berry JK (1996) Beyond mapping: Concepts, algorithms, issues in GIS. John Wiley and Sons Ltd., 246 ppGoogle Scholar
  7. Brassington R (1998) Field hydrogeology. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  8. British Columbia Ministry of Environment (2006) WELLS database http://www
  9. Brown DG (1998) Classification and boundary vagueness in mapping presettlement forest types. Int J Geograph Inform Sci 12:105–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Burrough PA (1996) Natural objects with indeterminate boundaries. In: Burrough PA, Frank AU (eds) Geographic objects with indeterminate boundaries, Taylor & Francis Inc., Bristol, pp 3–28Google Scholar
  11. Burrough PA (1989) Fuzzy mathematical methods for soil survey and land evaluation. J Soil Sci 40(3):477–492CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Burrough PA, Frank AU (eds) (1996) Geographic objects with indeterminate boundaries. Taylor & Francis, London, pp 345 Google Scholar
  13. Cameron E, Peloso GF (2001) An application of fuzzy logic to the assessment of aquifers’ pollution potential. Environ Geol 40(11–12):1305–1315Google Scholar
  14. Campari I (1996) Uncertain boundaries in urban space. In: Burrough PA, Frank AU (eds) Geographic objects with indeterminate boundaries, Taylor & Francis Inc., Bristol, pp 57–70Google Scholar
  15. Cheng T (2002) Fuzzy objects: their changes and uncertainties. Photogrammetric Eng Remote Sensing 68(1):41–49Google Scholar
  16. Chisholm M (1964) Rural settlement and land use. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  17. Clementini E, Di Felice P (1996) An algebraic model for spatial objects with indeterminate boundaries. In: Burrough PA, Frank AU (eds) Geographic objects with indeterminate boundaries. Taylor & Francis, London, pp 155–169Google Scholar
  18. Coleman A (1980) Boundaries as a framework for understanding land-use patterns. In: Kishimoto H (ed) Geography and its boundaries. Kummerly and Frey, ZurichGoogle Scholar
  19. Cox KR (1972) Man, location, and behaviour: an introduction to human geography. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  20. Csillag F, Fortin M-J, Dungan JL (2000) On the limits and extensions of the definition of scale. Bull Ecol Soc Am 81(3):230–232Google Scholar
  21. Davidson DA, Theocharopoulos SP et al (1994) A land evaluation project in Greece using GIS and based on Boolean and fuzzy set methodologies. Int J Geograph Inform Syst 8(4):369–384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Delhomme JP (1989) Spatial variability and uncertainty in groundwater flow parameters: a geostatistical approach. Water Resources Res 15:269–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. D’Ercole C, Groves DI, Knox-Robinson CM (2000) Using fuzzy logic in a Geographic information system environment to enhance conceptually based prospectivity analysis of Mississippi Valley-type mineralisation. Austr J Earth Sci 47(5):913–927. doi: 10.1046/j.1440-0952.2000.00821.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Desbarats AJ, Srivastava RM (1991) Geostatistical simulation of groundwater flow parameters in a simulated aquifer. Water Resources Res 27:687–698CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Dijkmeijer J, De Hoop S (1996) Topologic relationships between fuzzy area objects. In: Kraak MJ, Molenaar M (eds) Advances in GIS research II, proceedings of 7th spatial data handling. Taylor & Francis, London, pp 377–393Google Scholar
  26. Dou C, Woldt W, Bogardi I, Dahab M (1995) Steady state groundwater flow simulation with imprecise parameters. Water Resources Res 31(11):2709–2719CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Duckham M, Mason K, Stell JG, Worboys M (2001) A formal approach to imperfection in geographic information. Comput Environ Urban Syst 25:89–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Edwards G, Lowell KE (1996) Modeling uncertainty in photointerpreted boundaries. Photogrammetric Eng Remote Sensing 62(4):377–391Google Scholar
  29. Environmental Modeling Systems Inc (2006) GMS version 6.0Google Scholar
  30. Fetter CW (1994) Applied hydrogeology, 3rd edn. Prentice Hall Inc., Upper Saddle RiverGoogle Scholar
  31. Gale S (1972) Inexactness, fuzzy sets and the foundation of behavioral geography. Geograph Anal 4:337–349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Gemitzi A, Petalas C, Tsihrintzis VA, Pisinaras V (2005) Assessment of groundwater vulnerability to pollution: a combination of GIS, fuzzy logic and decision making techniques. Environ Geol 49(5):653–673. doi: 10.1007/s00254-005-0104-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Grigg D (1967) Regions, models and classes. In: Chorley RJ, Haggett P (eds) Integrated models in geography: parts I and IV of models in geography. Methuen, London, pp 461–509Google Scholar
  34. Gumbricht T, Thunvik R (1997) 3D hydrogeological modeling with an expert GIS interface. Nordic Hydrol 28(4–5):29–338Google Scholar
  35. Hoeksema RJ, Kitanidis PK (1989) Prediction of transmissivities, heads, and seepage velocities using mathematical models and geostatistics. Adv Water Resources 12:90–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hong YS, Rosen MR, Reeves RR (2002) Dynamic fuzzy modeling of storm water infiltration in urban fractured aquifers. J Hydrol Eng 7(5):380–391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Hseih B-Z, Lewis C, Lin Z-S (2005) Lithology identification of aquifers from geophysical well logs and fuzzy logic analysis: Shui-Lin Area, Taiwan. Comput Geosci 31(3):263–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Hudak PF (2000) Principles of hydrogeology, 2nd edn. Lewis Publishers, LondonGoogle Scholar
  39. Koike K, Sakamoto H, Ohmi M (2001) Detection and hydrologic modeling of aquifers in unconsolidated alluvial plains though combination of borehole data sets: a case study of the Arao area, Southwest Japan. Eng Geol 62(4):301–317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kollias V, Voliotis A (1991) Fuzzy reasoning in the development of geographical information systems. FRSIS: a prototype soil information system with fuzzy retrieval capabilities Int J Geograph Inform Syst 5(2):209–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Lee YW, Bogardi I, Dahab MF (1995) Nitrate-risk assessment using fuzzy-set approach. J Environ Eng 121(3):245–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Leung Y (1982) Approximate characterization of some fundamental concepts of spatial analysis. Geograph Anal 14(1):29–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Leung Y (1987) On the imprecision of boundaries. Geograph Anal 19(2):125–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Logan C, Russell HAJ, Sharpe DR (2001) Regional three-dimensional stratigraphic modeling of the Oak Ridges Moraine areas, southern Ontario. Current Research 2001-D1, Geological Survey of Canada, OttawaGoogle Scholar
  45. Lowell K (1994) An uncertainty-based spatial representation for natural resources phenomena. In: Waugh TC, Healey RG (eds) Advances in GIS research, proceedings of 6th symposium, Edinburgh, 1994, vol 2. Taylor & Francis, London, pp 933–944Google Scholar
  46. Marczinek S, Piotrowski JA (2002) Groundwater transport and composition in the Eckernforder Bay catchment area, Schleswig-Holstein. Grundwasser 7(2):101–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Mark DM, Csillag F (1989) The nature of boundaries on “area-class’ maps. Cartographica 26(1):65–78Google Scholar
  48. Martin PJ, Frind EO (1998) Modeling a complex multi-aquifer system: the Waterloo moraine. Ground Water 36(4):679–690CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. McNeil D, Frieberger P (1993) Fuzzy Logic. Simon and Schuster, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  50. Monroe JS, Wicander R (1998) Physical geology—exploring the earth, 3rd edn. Wadsworth Publishing Company, BelmontGoogle Scholar
  51. Neuman SP, Jacobson EA (1984) Analysis of nonintrinsic spatial variability by residual kriging with applications to regional groundwater levels. Math Geol 16:499–521CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Ozbek MM, Pinder GF (1998) A fuzzy logic approach to health risk based design of groundwater remediation. Comput Methods Water Resources 12(1):115–122Google Scholar
  53. Painter S (1996) Stochastic interpolation of aquifer properties using fractional Levy motion. Water Resources Res 32(5):323–1332Google Scholar
  54. Passarella G, Vurro M, Agostino D (1997) Optimization of monitoring networks using fuzzy variograms: preliminary results. In: Pawlowsky GV (ed) Proceedings of IAMG ‘97, the third annual conference of the international association for mathematical geology, pp 1074–1079Google Scholar
  55. Philip RD, Kitanidis PK (1989) Geostatistical estimation of hydraulic head gradients. Ground Water 27:855–865CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Piotrowski JA, Bartels F, Salski A, Schmidt D (1996) Geostatistical regionalization of glacial aquitard thickness in northwestern Germany, based on fuzzy kriging. Math Geol 28(4):437–452CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Robinson VB (1980) On the use of Markovian equilibrium distributions for land use policy evaluation. Socio-Econ Plann Sci 14(2):85–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Scibek J, Allen DM (2006) Modeled impacts of predicted climate change on recharge and groundwater levels. Water Resources Res 42. doi: 10.1029/2005WR004742
  59. Scibek J, Allen DM, Cannon A, Whitfield P (2006) Groundwater-surface water interaction under scenarios of climate change using a high-resolution transient groundwater model. J Hydrol. doi :10.1016/j.jhydrol.2006.08.005
  60. Shi WZ, Ehlers M et al (1999) Analytical modelling of positional and thematic uncertainties in the integration of remote sensing and geographical information systems. Trans GIS 3(2):119–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Tobler W (1999) Linear pycnophylactic reallocation -comment on a paper by D. Martin. Int J Geograph Inform Sci 13(1):85–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Usery EL (1996) Conceptual framework and fuzzy set implementation for geographic features. In: Burrough PA, Frank AU (eds) Geographic objects with indeterminate boundaries, Taylor & Francis Inc., Bristol, pp 71–86Google Scholar
  63. Wang F, Hall GB (1996) Fuzzy representation of geographical boundaries in GIS. Int J Geogr Inform Syst 10(5):573–590CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Weissmann GS, Carle SF, Fogg GE (1999) Three-dimensional hydrofacies modeling based on soil surveys and transition probability geostatistics. Water Resources Res 35:1761–1770CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Whittaker J, Teutsch G (1999) Numerical simulation of subsurface characterization methods: application to a natural aquifer analogue. Adv Water Resources 22(8):819–829CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Woldt WM, Dahab MF, Bogardi I, Dou C (1996) Management of diffuse pollution in groundwater under imprecise conditions using fuzzy models. Water Sci Technol 33(4–5):249–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Yates SR, Warrick AW (1987) Estimating soil water content using cokriging. Soil Sci Soc Am 51:23–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Zadeh LA (1965) Fuzzy sets. Inform Control 8(3):338–353CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Zeng TQ, Zhou Q (2001) Optimal spatial decision making using GIS: a prototype of a Real State Geographical Information System (REGIS). Int Journal of Geograph Inform Sci 15(4):307–321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Zhang Q (2003) A fuzzy set approach for modelling and visualizing aquifer spatial distribution: a case study of the grand forks aquifer, British Columbia, Canada. MSc Thesis, University of Salford, SalfordGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Earth SciencesSimon Fraser UniversityBurnabyCanada
  2. 2.Department of GeographySimon Fraser UniversityBurnabyCanada

Personalised recommendations