Articles | Volume 14, issue 11
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-7133-2021
© Author(s) 2021. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-7133-2021
© Author(s) 2021. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Development and technical paper
| 
24 Nov 2021
Development and technical paper |
| 24 Nov 2021
| 24 Nov 2021
How biased are our models? – a case study of the alpine region
Denise Degen
CORRESPONDING AUTHOR
Computational Geoscience and Reservoir Engineering, RWTH Aachen University, Wüllnerstr. 2, 52062 Aachen, Germany
Cameron Spooner
GFZ German Research Centre for Geosciences, Helmholtz Centre Potsdam, Telegrafenberg, 14473 Potsdam, Germany
Institute of Earth and Environmental Science, Potsdam University, 14476 Potsdam, Germany
Magdalena Scheck-Wenderoth
GFZ German Research Centre for Geosciences, Helmholtz Centre Potsdam, Telegrafenberg, 14473 Potsdam, Germany
Department of Geology, Geochemistry of Petroleum and Coal, RWTH Aachen University, 52056 Aachen, Germany
Mauro Cacace
GFZ German Research Centre for Geosciences, Helmholtz Centre Potsdam, Telegrafenberg, 14473 Potsdam, Germany
Related authors
Denise Degen, Moritz Ziegler, Oliver Heidbach, Andreas Henk, Karsten Reiter, and Florian Wellmann
Solid Earth, 16, 477–502, https://doi.org/10.5194/se-16-477-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/se-16-477-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Obtaining reliable estimates of the subsurface state distributions is essential to determine the location of, e.g., potential nuclear waste disposal sites. However, providing these is challenging since it requires solving the problem numerous times, yielding high computational cost. To overcome this, we use a physics-based machine learning method to construct surrogate models. We demonstrate how it produces physics-preserving predictions, which differentiates it from purely data-driven approaches.
Denise Degen, Ajay Kumar, Magdalena Scheck-Wenderoth, and Mauro Cacace
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1925, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1925, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Geodynamical simulations cover a wide spatial and temporal range and are crucial to understand and assess the evolution of the Earth system. To enable computationally efficient modeling approaches that can account for potentially unknown subsurface properties, we present a surrogate modeling technique. This technique combines physics-based and machine-learning techniques to enable reliable predictions of geodynamical applications, as we illustrate for the case study of the Alpine Region.
Denise Degen, Daniel Caviedes Voullième, Susanne Buiter, Harrie-Jan Hendricks Franssen, Harry Vereecken, Ana González-Nicolás, and Florian Wellmann
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 7375–7409, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-7375-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-7375-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
In geosciences, we often use simulations based on physical laws. These simulations can be computationally expensive, which is a problem if simulations must be performed many times (e.g., to add error bounds). We show how a novel machine learning method helps to reduce simulation time. In comparison to other approaches, which typically only look at the output of a simulation, the method considers physical laws in the simulation itself. The method provides reliable results faster than standard.
Denise Degen and Mauro Cacace
Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 1699–1719, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-1699-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-1699-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
In this work, we focus on improving the understanding of subsurface processes with respect to interactions with climate dynamics. We present advanced, open-source mathematical methods that enable us to investigate the influence of various model properties on the final outcomes. By relying on our approach, we have been able to showcase their importance in improving our understanding of the subsurface and highlighting the current shortcomings of currently adopted models.
Denise Degen, Moritz Ziegler, Oliver Heidbach, Andreas Henk, Karsten Reiter, and Florian Wellmann
Solid Earth, 16, 477–502, https://doi.org/10.5194/se-16-477-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/se-16-477-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Obtaining reliable estimates of the subsurface state distributions is essential to determine the location of, e.g., potential nuclear waste disposal sites. However, providing these is challenging since it requires solving the problem numerous times, yielding high computational cost. To overcome this, we use a physics-based machine learning method to construct surrogate models. We demonstrate how it produces physics-preserving predictions, which differentiates it from purely data-driven approaches.
Denise Degen, Ajay Kumar, Magdalena Scheck-Wenderoth, and Mauro Cacace
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1925, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1925, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Geodynamical simulations cover a wide spatial and temporal range and are crucial to understand and assess the evolution of the Earth system. To enable computationally efficient modeling approaches that can account for potentially unknown subsurface properties, we present a surrogate modeling technique. This technique combines physics-based and machine-learning techniques to enable reliable predictions of geodynamical applications, as we illustrate for the case study of the Alpine Region.
Javier Abreu-Torres, Gergő Hutka, Guido Blöcher, Mauro Cacace, Vincent Magnenet, and Jean Schmittbuhl
Adv. Geosci., 65, 117–125, https://doi.org/10.5194/adgeo-65-117-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/adgeo-65-117-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
We develop a simplified model which describes the geological geometry of the Vendenheim site, the solid and fluid properties were adapted from studies in the area. We implement compute the hydrothermal flow with a temperature dependent density and viscosity in a porous medium, in order to verify if a hydrothermal convective system is compatible with known observations at the Vendenheim site, and to get a better idea of the initial conditions of a model for an induced seismicity model.
Kalliopi Tzoufka, Guido Blöcher, Mauro Cacace, Daniela Pfrang, and Kai Zosseder
Adv. Geosci., 65, 103–111, https://doi.org/10.5194/adgeo-65-103-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/adgeo-65-103-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Concepts of High-Temperature Aquifer Thermal Energy Storage (HT-ATES) are investigated for system application in the German Molasse Basin. We quantify via physics-based numerical modelling the system performance with respect to HT-ATES concept development and provide a predictive analysis of HT-ATES application in the Upper Jurassic reservoir. Results demonstrate a non-uniform layer-specific distribution of the thermal front propagation, while promising heat recovery efficiencies are predicted.
Ángela María Gómez-García, Álvaro González, Mauro Cacace, Magdalena Scheck-Wenderoth, and Gaspar Monsalve
Solid Earth, 15, 281–303, https://doi.org/10.5194/se-15-281-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/se-15-281-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
We compute a realistic three-dimensional model of the temperatures down to 75 km deep within the Earth, below the Caribbean Sea and northwestern South America. Using this, we estimate at which rock temperatures past earthquakes nucleated in the region and find that they agree with those derived from laboratory experiments of rock friction. We also analyse how the thermal state of the system affects the spatial distribution of seismicity in this region.
Denise Degen, Daniel Caviedes Voullième, Susanne Buiter, Harrie-Jan Hendricks Franssen, Harry Vereecken, Ana González-Nicolás, and Florian Wellmann
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 7375–7409, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-7375-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-7375-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
In geosciences, we often use simulations based on physical laws. These simulations can be computationally expensive, which is a problem if simulations must be performed many times (e.g., to add error bounds). We show how a novel machine learning method helps to reduce simulation time. In comparison to other approaches, which typically only look at the output of a simulation, the method considers physical laws in the simulation itself. The method provides reliable results faster than standard.
Denise Degen and Mauro Cacace
Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 1699–1719, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-1699-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-1699-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
In this work, we focus on improving the understanding of subsurface processes with respect to interactions with climate dynamics. We present advanced, open-source mathematical methods that enable us to investigate the influence of various model properties on the final outcomes. By relying on our approach, we have been able to showcase their importance in improving our understanding of the subsurface and highlighting the current shortcomings of currently adopted models.
Cameron Spooner, Magdalena Scheck-Wenderoth, Mauro Cacace, and Denis Anikiev
Solid Earth Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/se-2020-202, https://doi.org/10.5194/se-2020-202, 2020
Revised manuscript not accepted
Short summary
Short summary
By comparing long term lithospheric strength to seismicity patterns across the Alpine region, we show that most seismicity occurs where strengths are highest within the crust. The lower crust appears largely aseismic due to energy being dissipated by ongoing creep from low viscosities. Lithospheric structure appears to exert a primary control on seismicity distribution, with both forelands display a different distribution patterns, likely reflecting their different tectonic settings.
Cited articles
Aretz-Nellesen, N., Grepl, M. A., and Veroy, K.: 3D-VAR for parameterized
partial differential equations: a certified reduced basis approach, Adv. Comput. Math., 45, 2369–2400, 2019. a
Baroni, G. and Tarantola, S.: A General Probabilistic Framework for
uncertainty and global sensitivity analysis of deterministic models: A
hydrological case study, Environ. Modell. Softw., 51, 26–34, 2014. a
Baş, D. and Boyacı, I. H.: Modeling and optimization I: Usability of response surface methodology, J. Food Eng., 78, 836–845, 2007. a
Bezerra, M. A., Santelli, R. E., Oliveira, E. P., Villar, L. S., and Escaleira,
L. A.: Response surface methodology (RSM) as a tool for optimization in
analytical chemistry, Talanta, 76, 965–977, 2008. a
Böhm, R., Auer, I., Schöner, W., Ganekind, M., Gruber, C., Jurkovic,
A., Orlik, A., and Ungersböck, M.: Eine neue Webseite mit instrumentellen
Qualitäts-Klimadaten für den Grossraum Alpen zurück bis 1760,
Wiener Mitteilungen, 216, 7–20, 2009. a
Box, G. E.: Robustness in the Strategy of Scientific Model Building, in:
Robustness in statistics, Elsevier, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 201–236, 1979. a
Cannavó, F.: Sensitivity analysis for volcanic source modeling quality
assessment and model selection, Comput. Geosci., 44, 52–59, 2012. a
Cherpeau, N. and Caumon, G.: Stochastic structural modelling in sparse data situations, 21, 233–247, 2015. a
Cloke, H., Pappenberger, F., and Renaud, J.-P.: Multi-Method Global
Sensitivity Analysis (MMGSA) for modelling floodplain hydrological
processes, Hydrological Processes: An International Journal, 22, 1660–1674, 2008. a
Degen, D., Veroy, K., and Wellmann, F.: cgre-aachen/DwarfElephant:
DwarfElephant 1.0, Zenodo [code], https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4074777, 2020b. a, b
Doherty, J. E. and Hunt, R. J.: Approaches to highly parameterized inversion: a
guide to using PEST for groundwater-model calibration, US Department of the
Interior, US Geological Survey Reston, 2010. a
Elison, P., Niederau, J., Vogt, C., and Clauser, C.: Quantification of thermal conductivity uncertainty for basin modeling, AAPG Bull., 103, 1787–1809, 2019. a
Fan, Y. and Van den Dool, H.: A global monthly land surface air temperature
analysis for 1948 – present, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 113, https://doi.org//10.1029/2007JD008470, 2008. a
Feng, L., Palmer, P. I., Parker, R. J., Deutscher, N. M., Feist, D. G., Kivi, R., Morino, I., and Sussmann, R.: Estimates of European uptake of CO2 inferred from GOSAT X
Fernández, M., Eguía, P., Granada, E., and Febrero, L.: Sensitivity
analysis of a vertical geothermal heat exchanger dynamic simulation:
Calibration and error determination, Geothermics, 70, 249–259, 2017. a
Feyen, L. and Caers, J.: Quantifying geological uncertainty for flow and
transport modeling in multi-modal heterogeneous formations, Adv. Water Resour., 29, 912–929, 2006. a
Floris, F., Bush, M., Cuypers, M., Roggero, F., and Syversveen, A. R.: Methods
for quantifying the uncertainty of production forecasts: a comparative study, Petrol. Geosci., 7, S87–S96, 2001. a
Frangos, M., Marzouk, Y., Willcox, K., and van Bloemen Waanders, B.: Surrogate and reduced-order modeling: A comparison of approaches for large-scale statistical inverse problems, in: Large–Scale Inverse Problems and Quantification of Uncertainty, John Wiley and Sons, Hoboken, New Jersey, USA, 7, 123–149. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470685853.ch7, 2010. a
Fuchs, S. and Balling, N.: Improving the temperature predictions of subsurface thermal models by using high-quality input data. Part 1: Uncertainty analysis of the thermal-conductivity parameterization, Geothermics, 64, 42–54, 2016. a
Ghasemi, M. and Gildin, E.: Model order reduction in porous media flow
simulation using quadratic bilinear formulation, Computat. Geosci.,
20, 723–735, 2016. a
Gosses, M., Nowak, W., and Wöhling, T.: Explicit treatment for Dirichlet, Neumann and Cauchy boundary conditions in POD-based reduction of groundwater models, Adv. Water Resour., 115, 160–171, 2018. a
Grepl, M.: Reduced-basis Approximation and A Posteriori Error Estimation for
Parabolic Partial Differential Equations, Ph.D. thesis, Massachusetts
Institute of Technology, 2005. a
Hill, M. C. and Tiedeman, C. R.: Effective groundwater model calibration: with analysis of data, sensitivities, predictions, and uncertainty, John Wiley and Sons, Hoboken, New Jersey, USA, 2006. a
Houghton, J. T., Ding, Y., Griggs, D. J., Noguer, M., van der Linden, P. J.,
Dai, X., Maskell, K., and Johnson, C.: Climate change 2001: the scientific
basis, The Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK, 2001. a
Iglesias, M. and Stuart, A. M.: Inverse Problems and Uncertainty
Quantification, SIAM News, https://homepages.warwick.ac.uk/~masdr/BOOKCHAPTERS/stuart19c.pdf, 2–3, 2014. a
Jülich Supercomputing Centre: JUWELS: Modular Tier-0/1 Supercomputer, Jülich Supercomputing Centre, JLSRF., 5, A135, https://doi.org/10.17815/jlsrf-5-171, 2019. a
Kärcher, M., Boyaval, S., Grepl, M. A., and Veroy, K.: Reduced basis
approximation and a posteriori error bounds for 4D-Var data assimilation,
Optim. Eng., 19, 663–695, 2018. a
Khuri, A. I. and Mukhopadhyay, S.: Response surface methodology, Wiley
Interdisciplinary Reviews: Computational Statistics, 2, 128–149, 2010. a
Lehmann, H., Wang, K., and Clauser, C.: Parameter identification and
uncertainty analysis for heat transfer at the KTB drill site using a 2-D
inverse method, Tectonophysics, 291, 179–194, 1998. a
Lerch, F. J.: Optimum data weighting and error calibration for estimation of
gravitational parameters, B. Geod., 65, 44–52, 1991. a
Linde, N., Ginsbourger, D., Irving, J., Nobile, F., and Doucet, A.: On
uncertainty quantification in hydrogeology and hydrogeophysics, Adv. Water Resour., 110, 166–181, 2017. a
Locarnini, M. M., Mishonov, A. V., Baranova, O. K., Boyer, T. P., Zweng, M. M., Garcia, H. E., Reagan, J. R., Seidov, D., Weathers, K. W., Paver, C. R., and Smolyar, I.: World ocean atlas 2013: Volume 1, Temperature, https://doi.org/10.7289/V55X26VD, 2013. a
Luijendijk, E., Winter, T., Köhler, S., Ferguson, G., von Hagke, C., and
Scibek, J.: Using thermal springs to quantify deep groundwater flow and its
thermal footprint in the Alps and North American Orogens, Geophys. Res. Lett., 47, https://doi.org/10.1029/2020GL090134, 2020. a
Magrin, A. and Rossi, G.: Deriving a new crustal model of Northern Adria: the
Northern Adria Crust (NAC) model, Front. Earth Sci., 8, 89, https://doi.org/10.3389/feart.2020.00089, 2020. a
Miao, T., Lu, W., Lin, J., Guo, J., and Liu, T.: Modeling and uncertainty
analysis of seawater intrusion in coastal aquifers using a surrogate model: a case study in Longkou, China, Arab. J. Geosci., 12, 1, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12517-018-4128-8, 2019. a
Mo, S., Shi, X., Lu, D., Ye, M., and Wu, J.: An adaptive Kriging surrogate
method for efficient uncertainty quantification with an application to
geological carbon sequestration modeling, Comput. Geosci., 125, 69–77, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cageo.2019.01.012, 2019. a
Murphy, J. M., Sexton, D. M., Barnett, D. N., Jones, G. S., Webb, M. J.,
Collins, M., and Stainforth, D. A.: Quantification of modelling
uncertainties in a large ensemble of climate change simulations, Nature,
430, 768–772, 2004. a
Myers, R. H., Montgomery, D. C., and Anderson-Cook, C. M.: Response Surface
Methodology: Process and Product Optimization Using Designed Experiments,
John Wiley and Sons, Hoboken, New Jersey, USA, 2016. a
Navarro, M., Le Maître, O. P., Hoteit, I., George, D. L., Mandli, K. T.,
and Knio, O. M.: Surrogate-based parameter inference in debris flow model,
Comput. Geosci., 22, 1447–1463, 2018. a
Permann, C. J., Gaston, D. R., Andrš, D., Carlsen, R. W., Kong, F.,
Lindsay, A. D., Miller, J. M., Peterson, J. W., Slaughter, A. E., Stogner,
R. H., and Martineau, R. C.: MOOSE: Enabling massively parallel
multiphysics simulation, SoftwareX, 11, 100430, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.softx.2020.100430, 2020. a
Przybycin, A. M., Scheck-Wenderoth, M., and Schneider, M.: The 3D conductive
thermal field of the North Alpine Foreland Basin: influence of the deep
structure and the adjacent European Alps, Geothermal Energy, 3, 17, 2015. a
Refsgaard, J. C., van der Sluijs, J. P., Højberg, A. L., and Vanrolleghem,
P. A.: Uncertainty in the environmental modelling process – a framework and guidance, Environ. Modell. Softw., 22, 1543–1556, 2007. a
Rizzo, C. B., de Barros, F. P., Perotto, S., Oldani, L., and Guadagnini, A.:
Adaptive POD model reduction for solute transport in heterogeneous porous
media, Comput. Geosci., 22, 297–308, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10596-017-9693-5, 2018. a
Rousset, M. A., Huang, C. K., Klie, H., and Durlofsky, L. J.: Reduced-order
modeling for thermal recovery processes, Comput. Geosci., 18, 401–415, 2014. a
Rozza, G., Huynh, D. B. P., and Patera, A. T.: Reduced basis approximation and a posteriori error estimation for affinely parametrized elliptic coercive
partial differential equations, Arch. Comput. Methods E., 15, 229, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11831-008-9019-9, (2008). a
Schaeffer, A. and Lebedev, S.: Global shear speed structure of the upper mantle and transition zone, Geophys. J. Int., 194, 417–449, 2013. a
Schwarz, R., Pfeifer, N., Pfennigbauer, M., and Mandlburger, G.: Depth
Measurement Bias in Pulsed Airborne Laser Hydrography Induced by Chromatic
Dispersion, IEEE Geosci. Remote S., 18, 1332–1336, 2020. a
Song, X., Zhang, J., Zhan, C., Xuan, Y., Ye, M., and Xu, C.: Global sensitivity analysis in hydrological modeling: Review of concepts, methods, theoretical framework, and applications, J. Hydrol., 523, 739–757, 2015. a
Spooner, C., Scheck-Wenderoth, M., Götze, H.-J., Ebbing, J., Hetényi, G., and the AlpArray Working Group: Density distribution across the Alpine lithosphere constrained by 3-D gravity modelling and relation to seismicity and deformation, Solid Earth, 10, 2073–2088, https://doi.org/10.5194/se-10-2073-2019, 2019a. a, b
Spooner, C., Scheck-Wenderoth, M., Götze, H.-J., Ebbing, J., and Hetényi, G.: 3D ALPS: 3D Gravity Constrained Model of Density Distribution Across the Alpine Lithosphere. V. 2.0., GFZ Data Services [data set], https://doi.org//10.5880/GFZ.4.5.2019.004, 2019b.
a
Spooner, C., Scheck-Wenderoth, M., Cacace, M., and Anikiev, D.: 3D-ALPS-TR: A 3D thermal and rheological model of the Alpine lithosphere, GFZ Data Services [data set], https://doi.org/10.5880/GFZ.4.5.2020.007, 2020a. a
Tang, Y., Reed, P., Van Werkhoven, K., and Wagener, T.: Advancing the
identification and evaluation of distributed rainfall-runoff models using
global sensitivity analysis, Water Resour. Res., 43, 6, https://doi.org/10.1029/2006WR005813, 2007. a
Trumpy, E. and Manzella, A.: Geothopica and the interactive analysis and
visualization of the updated Italian National Geothermal Database,
In. J. Appl. Earth Obs., 54, 28–37, 2017. a
Turcotte, D. L. and Schubert, G.: Geodynamics, 2nd edn, Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, UK, 456 pp., 2002. a
van Griensven, A., Meixner, T., Grunwald, S., Bishop, T., Diluzio, M., and
Srinivasan, R.: A global sensitivity analysis tool for the parameters of
multi-variable catchment models, J. Hydrol., 324, 10–23, 2006. a
Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., Haberland, M., Reddy, T., Cournapeau, D., Burovski, E., Peterson, P., Weckesser, W., Bright, J., van der Walt, S. J., Brett, M., Wilson, J., Millman, K. J., Mayorov, N., Nelson, A. R. J., Jones, E., Kern, R., Larson, E., Carey, C. J., Polat, I., Feng, Y., Moore, E. W., VanderPlas, J., Laxalde, D., Perktold, J., Cimrman, R., Henriksen, I., Quintero, E. A., Harris, C. R., Archibald, A. M., Ribeiro, A. H., Pedregosa, F., van Mulbregt, P., and SciPy 1.0 Contributors: SciPy 1.0: fundamental algorithms for scientific computing in Python, Nature methods, 17, 261–272, 2020 (code available at: https://scipy.org, last access: 18 November 2021). a
Vogt, C., Mottaghy, D., Wolf, A., Rath, V., Pechnig, R., and Clauser, C.:
Reducing temperature uncertainties by stochastic geothermal reservoir
modelling, Geophys. J. Int., 181, 321–333, 2010. a
Wagner, R. and Clauser, C.: Evaluating thermal response tests using parameter
estimation for thermal conductivity and thermal capacity, J. Geophys. Eng., 2, 349–356, 2005. a
Wellmann, J. F. and Reid, L. B.: Basin-scale geothermal model calibration:
Experience from the Perth Basin, Australia, Energy Proced., 59,
382–389, 2014. a
Zehner, B., Watanabe, N., and Kolditz, O.: Visualization of gridded scalar data with uncertainty in geosciences, Comput. Geosci., 36, 1268–1275,
2010. a
Zhan, C.-S., Song, X.-M., Xia, J., and Tong, C.: An efficient integrated
approach for global sensitivity analysis of hydrological model parameters,
Environ. Modell. Softw., 41, 39–52, 2013. a
Zlotnik, S., Díez, P., Modesto, D., and Huerta, A.: Proper generalized
decomposition of a geometrically parametrized heat problem with geophysical
applications, Int. J. Numer. Meth. Eng., 103, 737–758, 2015. a
Short summary
In times of worldwide energy transitions, an understanding of the subsurface is increasingly important to provide renewable energy sources such as geothermal energy. To validate our understanding of the subsurface we require data. However, the data are usually not distributed equally and introduce a potential misinterpretation of the subsurface. Therefore, in this study we investigate the influence of measurements on temperature distribution in the European Alps.
In times of worldwide energy transitions, an understanding of the subsurface is increasingly...
