Joint 69th Annual Southeastern / 55th Annual Northeastern Section Meeting - 2020

Paper No. 72-1
Presentation Time: 1:30 PM-5:30 PM

STATEWIDE THREE-DIMENSIONAL DATABASE AND MODEL AT THE KENTUCKY GEOLOGICAL SURVEY


ANDREWS Jr., William, Kentucky Geological Survey, University of Kentucky, 228 Mining & Mineral Resources Bldg, Lexington, KY 40506-0107, HICKMAN, John B., Kentucky Geological Survey, University of Kentucky, 228 Mining and Mineral Resources Building, Lexington, KY 40506-0107 and CURL, Douglas C., Kentucky Geological Survey, University of Kentucky, 228 Mining and Mineral Resources Building, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY 40506-0107

To support future three-dimensional modeling by the Kentucky Geological Survey and collaborators, KGS is compiling a database of source data for 3D subsurface interpretation. The design and development of the 3D database is focusing on consistent data structures, updatability, accessibility, capable of utilizing multiple data sources, flexible outputs, and documentation of uncertainty levels.

The primary input data for this database includes a 3D fault model, interpreted boundary surfaces of key lithostratigraphic units (structure contours), and point clouds of available characterization data. The 3D fault model is being extrapolated from faults mapped statewide at 1:24,000 using available public and proprietary geophysical data. Interpreted surface boundaries (3D contacts) are sourced from structure contours of various horizons developed during geologic mapping, as well as regional interpreted structure contours for various regional projects. Boundaries of lithostratigraphic horizons are being prioritized for inclusion in the database following a framework of global sedimentary sequences. The 3D point data includes both individual picks of stratigraphic boundaries, as well as various forms of lithologic, geophysical and geochemical characterization data. Consistent data structure is a critical consideration for the database. Map, contour, and point data are being formatted consistent with elements of the community developed GeMS geologic map data schema. This data schema encourages feature level acknowledgment of differing data sources and uncertainty. Multiple editions of boundary surfaces for select horizons are being included. The multiple generations of surfaces were produced at different times, at different scales, for different projects. These are being compared to better understand the geospatial distribution of confidence for particular horizons.

A preliminary draft statewide 3D geologic data model derived from surfaces generated from recent projects allows for visualization and preliminary analysis of potential outputs from the database.