OR/17/003 Appendix 1

Terrington, R, Thorpe, S and Jirner, E. 2017. Enköping Esker pilot study - workflow for data integration and publishing of 3D geological outputs. British Geological Survey Internal Report, OR/17/003.

GSI3D model (all types) NGM corporate check

Model name with version number	Lead modeller	Project Leader TL reviewer	Date submitted	Technical checker Scientific QA reviewer	Date completed
Enköping Model	Eva Jirner (SGU)	Ricky Terrington (RT)	09/12/2016	Steve Thorpe (ST)	06/01/2017

Major limitations that should be addressed are shown in bold. Legacy models may not meet all the checking criteria but may still be included in NGM with noted limitations in metadata shown below in bold italics.

23/10/14: to expedite QA checking, items below marked ** are considered not critical to legacy and internal model approval and may be disregarded.

NB: Model contains # units and # cross-sections.**

Mainly technical checking and metadata QA

Check	Details	QA comment	Name	Date
1.  Metadata completed
Check the metadata report contents page and report details: Is a map of fault distribution included? Are all the units modelled listed? Are the sources of legacy and baseline data identified with version numbers including raster backdrops for maps and sections? (see also 11.4 below) Is the model approval form completed and signed off? Have any raster backdrops for map and section window stated in the metadata been included?		N/A – Superficial geology only Yes – in the report and GVS Yes, all included in the report N/A, the Enköping model is not part of the national geological model in the UK Yes, all raster backdrops have been stated in the report	RT	03/01/2017
2.  Metadata rules, limitations and exceptions
Check the statements in the metadata fit with the model itself? Is it fit for the purposes claimed in the metadata. Do any limitations stated indicate it is unfit for any other purposes?		N/A. Metadata document not produced No – generic limitations have been mentioned only	RT	03/01/2017
3.  Compliance of geological naming conventions
Check bedrock units against Lexicon and Dic_Rock_All * Is the geological succession used documented in metadata and is it reasonable, based on regional GVS’s, stratigraphic charts etc Any Quaternary deposits must either have lexicon codes or be components of parent units with lexicon codes, these should be based wherever possible on the schema in McMillan et al. A table of hierarchical relationships should be included in the metadata Do artificial deposit names correspond to lexicon codes and recommended deposit types, suffixes may identify multiple units e.g. MGR_1 etc Are any lenses or exceptions clearly stated?		N/A BGS internal procedure only Yes – follows that of the Uppsala model N/A – Swedish model N/A Yes	RT	03/01/2017
4.  Compliance of model component naming conventions
Are GSI3D files correctly named? Is section naming convention understandable, or documented? ** Are faults correctly named and clean? ** Is the colour schema reasonable? **		Yes Yes N/A – Superficial model only Yes – as prescribed by SGU	RT	03/01/2017
5.  Compatibility with incorporated or adjacent models
Check the metadata, model approval form, GDI for detail of adjacent/incorporated models. Has appropriate action been taken to fit with or incorporate existing or adjacent models? ** Have surfaces faults or other objects generated outside the modelling workspace been incorporated into the model, is the source documented in the metadata, check consistency **		N/A although the geology is similar to that in the Uppsala geological model Yes – all external data sources have been listed and documented	RT	03/01/2017
6.  DTM
Does the DTM contain obvious errors e.g. woods, spikes, note if observed. ** Does it honour the geomorphology of landforms such as valleys, terraces, eskers etc and also areas of artificial ground (e.g. quarries, land-raise)? ‘Geologically reasonable’? Does the resolution of the geological envelope or baseline data correspond to the DTM resolution?		DTM does contain spikes and is blocky. Probably the method that has been used to process the DTM Yes – need confirmation from SGU modellers Yes – need confirmation from SGU modellers	RT	03/01/2017
7.  Faults
Fault-fault contacts should exist and faults should be neatly truncated at junctions. There should not be fault-fault gaps (check at calculation)		N/A
8.  Geological unit surfaces (QA scientist to use Arc grids generated by Technical checker)
Check for large spikes in calculated surfaces by uncovering the calculated surfaces or volumes in 3D Check for holes within envelopes Are the units ‘geologically reasonable’? Do lenses calculate correctly?		Yes – thickness checks have been done using the ASCII grids Done – map has been used. Done N/A no lens units	ST/RT	03/01/2017
9.  Systematic technical check of cross sections
For each section (Technical check only): Is the section correctly orientated? ** Are correlation lines trimmed to section ends? Are croplines snapped? Are crossing sections snapped?		Yes Yes Yes Yes	ST	03/01/2017
10.  Borehole logs
Do they generally fit the DTM or does the metadata say to hang from the DTM? ** Do the correlation lines reasonably match the logs’ LEX-RCS codings (or as qualified in the metadata)? Are they in their correct geographical positions (as inferable from their GLs vs the DTM)? ** Are terminal depths illogically interpreted as unit bases?		Yes – all boreholes are hung from DTM N/A BGS internal only Yes – see point 1 No	RT/ST	03/01/2017
Mainly scientific QA
11.  Fidelity of model to data
Check that a good representation of available boreholes are included in sections Is the retained fault network adequately honoured allowing for appropriate simplification from map-face? Are structural measurements (e.g. dips) on the corresponding map taken into account as far as reasonable? Check no major data source has been left out (refer to metadata) ** Check modelled horizon extents correspond to geological linework of the appropriate scale? (subject to revisions carried out when modelling, noted in metadata)		Yes – 44% N/A N/A Geosigma surfaces and data points could be incorporated at a future date Yes – geological model linework matches map linework provided	RT	03/01/2017
12.  Scientific QA check of cross sections
See items 11.1–11.5 above. 10–20% of sections checked by scientific QA:		a. [section name – comment]
13.  Fit for NGM purpose
Does the model have sufficient extent and stratigraphic coverage to comprise a credible part of an integrated multi-scaled national model? If not, recommend for either RESTRICTED folder (low priority) or for PENDING ACTION folder		N/A
14.  Any other comments
		Geological check should be undertaken by somebody in SGU	RT	03/01/2017

* Extract from BGS IDA Rock Dictionaries (RCS) Search and Viewing Application:

BGS.DIC_ROCK_ALL. This dictionary includes all DIC_ROCK_NAMEV3 entries, together with: a. codes for specified composites, such as those approved for use on maps. These composites are defined in terms of the single entries in DIC_ROCK_NAMEV3. b. a number of pragmatic ‘non-rock’ entries that are required to facilitate full coding of (for example) borehole records.

DIC_ROCK_NAMEV3 is Version 3 of the largely RCS-compliant dictionary of rock names — the currently approved version. Most of its content is RCS-compliant, but for the time being it still includes a number of ‘legacy’ entries intended to support authentic coding of historical records. Entries include unique ‘root’ names from the RCS (e.g. ‘basalt’) as well as a gradually increasing set of approved qualified root names.