4.7 Article

DeCompactionTool: Software for subsidence analysis including statistical error quantification

期刊

COMPUTERS & GEOSCIENCES
卷 34, 期 11, 页码 1454-1460

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.cageo.2008.01.002

关键词

Subsidence; Monte Carlo simulation; Error quantification; Basin analysis; Vienna Basin

资金

  1. Austrian Science Fund FWF [P1370-Geo, P18203-N10]
  2. Research Scholarship [F067-N]
  3. Austrian Science Fund (FWF) [P18203] Funding Source: Austrian Science Fund (FWF)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Subsidence analysis based on decompaction of the sedimentary record is a standard method for reconstructing the evolution of sedimentary basins. For such an analysis, data on strata thickness, lithology. age constraints, lithological properties, porosity, palaeobathymetry, sea-level changes and heat flux, amongst others, are required. The uncertainties associated with this wide range of input parameters have a major effect on the shape of the resulting subsidence curve, particularly because errors at successive points are not independent. The program DeCompactionTool (DCT) combines 1D-subsidence calculations, including backstripping, with error quantification, based on the principles of Monte Carlo simulation (MCS). In this, the range of possible input values (minimum, maximum, most likely number) is assigned to each of the parameters used. The parameter age has been implemented for the first time. A random number generator chooses values within the defined intervals and calculates results for every combination. The probability that a number is selected by the generator may follow a uniform distribution, a power distribution, a symmetric normal distribution or an asymmetric normal distribution. The results are mean values with two extreme values quantifying the error range. To demonstrate the program's capabilities, an example of subsidence calculation based on well-data from the Vienna Basin is presented. (C) 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.7
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