OR/14/026 Software used and model workflow: Difference between revisions

From MediaWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Dbk (talk | contribs)
No edit summary
Dbk (talk | contribs)
No edit summary
Line 10: Line 10:
# Compiled all raw data into a GIS: W:\Teams\UKGF\RegionalLithoframe\Data\East_Midlands\EastMidlands.mxd
# Compiled all raw data into a GIS: W:\Teams\UKGF\RegionalLithoframe\Data\East_Midlands\EastMidlands.mxd
# Imported all fault traces, outcrop data and structural contours for each horizon into GOCAD®.
# Imported all fault traces, outcrop data and structural contours for each horizon into GOCAD®.
# Additional data added included the NextMap DTM (See Model Datasets Section 4)
# Additional data added included the NextMap DTM ([[OR/14/026 Model datasets | See Model Datasets]])
# A raw surface (uncut by faults at this stage) for each horizon was modelled using a combination of the structural contours and outcrop which had elevation values applied from the DTM surface data.
# A raw surface (uncut by faults at this stage) for each horizon was modelled using a combination of the structural contours and outcrop which had elevation values applied from the DTM surface data.
# Every fault trace was draped onto its corresponding surface using the ‘Transfer Property by Vertical Projection’ tool and then following the methodology established in Sections 3.1 and 3.2, the fault plane was constructed.
# Every fault trace was draped onto its corresponding surface using the ‘Transfer Property by Vertical Projection’ tool and then following the methodology established in [[OR/14/026 Modelled faults #Fault sticks | Fault Sticks]] and [[OR/14/026 Modelled faults #Fault lenter lines | fault center lines]], the fault plane was constructed.
# Once all of the faults had been constructed, branch contacts were established between the faults using the manual ‘cut surfaces with constraints’ method.
# Once all of the faults had been constructed, branch contacts were established between the faults using the manual ‘cut surfaces with constraints’ method.
# The faults were then used to cut the raw surface horizons using the ‘Horizon-Fault Contact Modelling’ in the Structural Modelling workflow.
# The faults were then used to cut the raw surface horizons using the ‘Horizon-Fault Contact Modelling’ in the Structural Modelling workflow.

Revision as of 10:13, 10 August 2015

Hulbert A G, Terrington R L. 2014. Metadata report for the East Midlands region of the Pennine Basin 1:250 000 resolution geological model. British Geological Survey Internal Report, OR/14/026.

Software used

  • GOCAD® v2009
  • ArcGIS 9.3
  • MS Excel

Model workflow

The following workflow was used to generate the Northumberland-Solway Basin Model:

  1. Compiled all raw data into a GIS: W:\Teams\UKGF\RegionalLithoframe\Data\East_Midlands\EastMidlands.mxd
  2. Imported all fault traces, outcrop data and structural contours for each horizon into GOCAD®.
  3. Additional data added included the NextMap DTM ( See Model Datasets)
  4. A raw surface (uncut by faults at this stage) for each horizon was modelled using a combination of the structural contours and outcrop which had elevation values applied from the DTM surface data.
  5. Every fault trace was draped onto its corresponding surface using the ‘Transfer Property by Vertical Projection’ tool and then following the methodology established in Fault Sticks and fault center lines, the fault plane was constructed.
  6. Once all of the faults had been constructed, branch contacts were established between the faults using the manual ‘cut surfaces with constraints’ method.
  7. The faults were then used to cut the raw surface horizons using the ‘Horizon-Fault Contact Modelling’ in the Structural Modelling workflow.
  8. Fault contacts and surface horizons were either edited using the Structural Modelling workflow parameters or manually using the tools available in GOCAD®


Figure 8 Example fault contact from the Northumberland-Solway Model between the Ninety Fathom fault (Main) and the Stublick fault (branch) from Terrington et al (2013).