3D-CEBS: Three-dimensional lithospheric-scale structural model of the Central European Basin System and adjacent areas

Cite as:

Maystrenko, Yuriy Petrovich; Scheck-Wenderoth, Magdalena; Anikiev, Denis (2020): 3D-CEBS: Three-dimensional lithospheric-scale structural model of the Central European Basin System and adjacent areas. V. 1. GFZ Data Services. https://doi.org/10.5880/GFZ.4.5.2020.006

Status

I N R E V I E W : Maystrenko, Yuriy Petrovich; Scheck-Wenderoth, Magdalena; Anikiev, Denis (2020): 3D-CEBS: Three-dimensional lithospheric-scale structural model of the Central European Basin System and adjacent areas. V. 1. GFZ Data Services. https://doi.org/10.5880/GFZ.4.5.2020.006

Abstract

We provide a set of grid files that collectively allow recreating a 3D geological model which covers the Central European Basin System and adjacent areas. The data publication is a complement to the publication of Maystrenko and Scheck-Wenderoth (2013) with a higher spatial and stratigraphic resolution.

The structural model consists of
(i) 11 sedimentary units including sea water;
(ii) five crystalline crust units composed of four upper crustal units and one lower crustal unit;
(iii) one lithospheric mantle unit.

The available files include information on the regional variation of these geological units in terms of their depth and thickness, both attributes being allocated to regularly spaced grid nodes with horizontal spacing of 4 km. In comparison, the horizontal spacing of data provided by Maystrenko and Scheck-Wenderoth (2013) was 16 km. Besides, the model provided here resolves Permian, Mesozoic and Cenozoic sediments and Permo-Carboniferous volcanics.

The model has originally been developed to analyse the first-order structural features characterizing the crust and the lithospheric mantle below the Central European Basin System and adjacent areas and obtain a basis for numerical simulations of heat transport and to calculate the lithospheric-scale conductive thermal field.

Such simulations require the subsurface variation of physical rock properties to be defined, the 3D model differentiates units of contrasting materials, i.e. rock types. On that account, a large number of geological and geophysical data have been analysed (see Related Works) and we shortly describe here how they have been integrated into a consistent 3D model (Methods). For further information on the data usage and the characteristics of the units (e.g., lithology, density, thermal properties), the reader is referred to Maystrenko and Scheck-Wenderoth (2013).

The contents and structure of the grid files provided herewith are described in the Technical Information section and the associated data description file (pdf).

Additional Information

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to Hans-Jürgen Götze and Sabine Schmidt for permission to use the 3D gravity modelling software (IGMAS+) as well as for providing us help with this software.

Methods

The presented 3D structural model is the result of an extensive data integration, we visualized and collectively analysed geological maps, smaller-scale 3D structural models, depth and thickness maps, drilled formation tops and interpreted seismic horizons (see Related Works) using the software Petrel (©Schlumberger) and Earth Vision (©Dynamic Graphics). After identifying the main lithological units to be differentiated by the intended 3D model and correcting for inconsistencies between the layers, the scattered information on the top surface elevation of the units was interpolated to obtain regular grids with a horizontal element spacing of 4 km.

The original datasets (e.g., their regional extents, sources etc.) used to model the topology of the structural horizons are listed in Maystrenko and Scheck-Wenderoth (2013).

In order to mitigate insufficient coverage of the region with deep seismic profiles revealing the internal structure of the sub-sedimentary crystalline crust, we have performed 3D gravity modelling, in particular to assess the depth position of the interface between the upper and the lower crust in areas at large distance from any seismic constraints. Therefore, we have assigned an observation-constrained density value to each model layer and, by using the software IGMAS+, interactively modified the top of the lower crust until the gravity field computed for the 3D density model was consistent with the Bouguer gravity anomaly onshore and the free air anomaly offshore taken from the European gravity database (Wybraniec, Zhou et al. 1998).

Technical Information

The model grids are provided as space-separated ASCII files, one for each model unit, while their structure is identical. As indicated by the headers of these files, column #1 contains the easting (X coordinate), column #2 the northing (Y coordinate), column #3 the depth of the top of the model unit [m above sea level] and column #4 the thickness of the respective layer [m].

The horizontal dimensions of the model are 1784 km x 1060 km.

The model comprises 17 layers:
1. Sea Water
2. Tertiary
3. Cretaceous
4. Jurassic
5. Triassic
6. Permian Salt
7. Permian Carbonates
8. Rotliegend Sediments
9. Permo-Carboniferous Volcanics
10. Pre-Permian Sediments
11. Bohemian Granite
12. Variscan Crust
13. Laurentia Crust
14. Avalonia Crust
15. Baltica Crust
16. Lower Crust
17. Upper Mantle

Depth and thickness information for every layer is provided for regularly (4 km) spaced grid nodes which are identical for all model units. These grid nodes are assigned coordinates of the UTM Zone 32N. For an overview of the thickness maps of the layers we refer to Maystrenko and Scheck-Wenderoth (2013).

The file names include the name of the corresponding model unit and a number that refers to the structural position of the unit; for recomposing the 3D model, one would have to order the grids with increasing number to build the model from top to bottom. The vertical resolution of the final 3D model is heterogeneous since it corresponds to the variable thickness of its units.

Please also note that the thickness of the gridded units is set to the minimum value of 0.1 m at places where the units are actually observed to be absent. We accept this offset value since (i) this minor vertical shift of grid nodes significantly simplifies the transformation into a 3D model ready for applying the Finite Element Method (e.g., for heat transport simulations) and (ii) a thickness difference of 0.1 m does not critically affect lithospheric-scale calculations of gravity anomalies and the conductive thermal field.

Authors

Maystrenko, Yuriy Petrovich;GFZ German Research Centre for Geosciences, Potsdam, Germany;Geological Survey of Norway (NGU), Trondheim, Norway
Scheck-Wenderoth, Magdalena;GFZ German Research Centre for Geosciences, Potsdam, Germany
Anikiev, Denis;GFZ German Research Centre for Geosciences, Potsdam, Germany