GEOSCAN, résultats de la recherche


TitreLocating and quantifying geological uncertainty in three-dimensional models: Analysis of the Gippsland Basin, southeastern Australia
AuteurLindsay, M D; Aillères, L; Jessell, M W; de Kemp, E A; Betts, P G
SourceTectonophysics vol. 546-547, 2012 p. 10-27,
Séries alt.Secteur des sciences de la Terre, Contribution externe 20140326
ÉditeurElsevier BV
Mediapapier; en ligne; numérique
Lat/Long OENS147.0000 150.0000 -37.0000 -39.0000
ProgrammeÉtude des gîtes de SEDEX, Initiative géoscientifique ciblée (IGC-4)
Résumé(disponible en anglais seulement)
Geological three-dimensional (3D) models are constructed to reliably represent a given geological target. The
reliability of a model is heavily dependent on the input data and is sensitive to uncertainty. This study exam-
ines the uncertainty introduced by geological orientation data by producing a suite of implicit 3d models gen-
erated from orientation measurements subjected to uncertainty simulations. The resulting uncertainty
associated with different regions of the geological model can be located, quanti
ed and visualised, providing
a useful method to assess model reliability. The method is tested on a natural geological setting in the Gipps-
land Basin, southeastern Australia, where modelled geological surfaces are assessed for uncertainty. The con-
cept of stratigraphic variability is introduced and analysis of the input data is performed using two
uncertainty visualisation methods. Uncertainty visualisation through stratigraphic variability is designed to
convey the complex concept of 3D model uncertainty to the geoscientist in an effective manner.
Uncertainty analysis determined that additional seismic information provides an effective means of con-
straining modelled geology and reducing uncertainty in regions proximal to the seismic sections. Improve-
ments to the reliability of high uncertainty regions achieved using information gathered from uncertainty
visualisations are quanti
ed in a comparative case study. Uncertainty in speci
c model locations is identi
and attributed to possible disagreements between seismic and isopach data. Further improvements to and
additional sources of data for the model are proposed based on this information. Finally, a method of intro-
ducing stratigraphic variability values as geological constraints for geophysical inversion is presented.