Search Index Search Results November Contents
GEOHORIZONS
3-D modeling of geologic
maps from surface data
Damien Dhont, Pascal Luxey, and Jean Chorowicz
ABSTRACT
Recent discoveries in earth sciences are mostly related to tech-
nologies allowing graphical representations of volumes. We pres-
ent a way to produce mathematically and geometrically correct
three-dimensional (3-D) geologic maps consisting of the volume
and shape of all geologic features of a given area. The method is
innovative in that it only uses surface information based on the
combination of a standard geologic map, a satellite image, and a
digital elevation model. It is based on a modeling algorithm that
only uses surfaces calculated from scattered data points and that
intersects them following a series of geologically sound rules. The
major advantage of using such technology is that it provides the
user with a way to quantify geology. To illustrate how a 3-D
geologic map can be computed, we explain the steps taken to build
a dummy model with simple faulting and depositional sequencing.
The case study chosen to illustrate the method is the Beirut
watershed (Lebanon), an area with relatively simple geology. The
3-D visualization and cross sections help in the understanding of
the geometrical relationship between the different geologic fea-
tures, allowing a reexamination of the tectonic history of the area
during the late Mesozoic.
INTRODUCTION
Modern geology requires accurate representation of layer volumes.
Three-dimensional (3-D) geologic models are increasingly the best
method to constrain geology at depth. Until now, geologic volume
modeling has been based on the interpretation of expensive two-
dimensional (2-D) and 3-D seismic surveys and/or well-log data.
Hence, it has been typically used by the oil industry for explo-
ration and production.
Copyright #2005. The American Association of Petroleum Geologists. All rights reserved.
Manuscript received October 12, 2004; provisional acceptance January 12, 2005; revised manuscript
received June 6, 2005; final acceptance June 27, 2005.
DOI:10.1306/06270504108
AAPG Bulletin, v. 89, no. 11 (November 2005), pp. 1465 –1474
AUTHORS
Damien Dhont  Formation de Recherche
en Evolution 2639 –Centre National de la
Recherche Scientifique: Imagerie Géophysique,
CURS-IPRA, Université de Pau et des Pays de
l’Adour, Avenue de l’Université, Pau Cedex,
France; damien.dhont@univ-pau.fr
Damien Dhont is an assistant professor of
structural geology and remote sensing at
the University of Pau. He received his Ph.D.
in 1999 from Paris 6 University. His research
interests include the structure of thrust and
fold belts, the extensional collapse of orogens,
and the study of the relationships between
tectonics and volcanism. His main studied
areas correspond to recent orogenic belts
and plateaus of the Middle East and South
America.
Pascal Luxey  Dynamic Graphics Inc.,
1015 Atlantic Avenue, Alameda, California,
94501-1154
Pascal Luxey received his Ph.D. in 1995 from
Paris 6 University (France). He was then granted
funds to study at the Southampton Oceanog-
raphy Center (United Kingdom) the interactions
between the Icelandic hot spot and the Mid-
Atlantic Ridge between 1995 and 1998. For the
last 7 years, he has been a geological appli-
cation specialist for Dynamic Graphics Inc.
Jean Chorowicz  Unité Mixte de Recherche
7072–Centre National de la Recherche Scienti-
fique: Laboratoire de Tectonique, case 129,
Université Paris 6, 4 place Jussieu 75252 Paris
Cedex 05, France
Jean Chorowicz is a professor of tectonics,
remote sensing sciences, and their applications
at Paris 6 University. Formerly a field geolo-
gist in Yugoslavia, he has concentrated on the
development of remote sensing in geology
since 1972. He keeps a constant research
activity on orogenic belts, especially in the
peri-Mediterranean region. He has studied rifts
and basins, transform faults, and relationships
between tectonics and volcanism.
1465
 Search Index
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This study has been made in the frame of the
collaboration between the Saint-Joseph Uni-
versity in Lebanon and the University of Pau
in France. This project has been funded by the
Research Council of Saint-Joseph University.
The article benefited from constructive and
thorough reviews by Jim Granath, Sandro Serra,
and an anonymous referee. The English has
been improved thanks to careful corrections
of Carol Man.
1466 Geohorizons
Search Results November Contents
Quantitative structural analysis related to surface geologic map-
ping has been obtained using stereoscopic remote sensing imagery
(Berger et al., 1992; Bilotti et al., 2000). It allows the calculation
of the strike and dip of bedding, which can be used to supple-
ment field mapping (Banerjee and Mitra, 2004). In a recent ar-
ticle, Fernandez et al. (2004) presented a methodology to generate
3-D reconstructions of geologic surfaces by integrating geologic
mapping and field data. Here, we go further in that we present a
way to generate efficient and accurate representations of geologic
structure volumes at depth using existing and inexpensive data
sets. This approach is innovative in that it is based only on surface
information from published geologic maps, remote sensing data,
and a digital elevation model (DEM).
The method is applied to the Beirut watershed (Lebanon),
which is characterized by well-exposed and well-mapped structures
(Figure 1). The area is located on the western side of the Lebanon
ridge and is underlain by Late Jurassic to early Cenozoic interbedded
sandstone and fissure-karstic limestone that are cut by volcanic
intrusions. All layers are offset by subvertical faults, with small
amounts of throw, striking mainly northeast and east-southeast
(Freund et al., 1970). East of the watershed, the strata are almost
flat. Near the coast, they abruptly dip west. This peculiar shape,
called the western Lebanon flexure, is dated to at least early Mio-
cene ( Walley, 1998).
Our aim is to present a 3-D geologic map that gives quan-
titative data not only at the surface (i.e., bed strikes and dips) but
also at depth. The map then provides the opportunity to describe
the geometry of the geologic structures through different graphical
representations.
STATE OF THE ART
The concept of a volumetric or 3-D geologic map needs to be
clarified because it is commonly misused. Fernandez et al. (2004)
present a good review of the different methods developed for the
generation of 3-D reconstructions. On a standard paper geologic
map, geologic features such as lithologic boundaries or faults rep-
resent four variables: the spatial coordinates (x,y,z), expressed on
the topographic map, and another variable that represents what-
ever criteria are used by the geologist to differentiate geologic units
(time, facies, depositional event, etc). Hence, the geologic map
corresponds to a planar view (2-D) representing four-dimensional
variables. Digitizing geologic boundaries on a map creates a 2-D
matrix (x,y) containing elements corresponding to an isochron (t),
but the elevation (z) is not considered. Draping the scanned geo-
logic map onto a DEM is a way to account for the missing variable
(z). Such technology allows a better representation of the geology.
Because a 2-D topographic map represents the variation of (z)
along the x- and y-axes, a flying-carpetlike view of a DEM remains
a 2-D object despite the fact that it is seen in 3-D. Displays of
 Search Index Search Results
scanned geologic maps draped onto DEMs in rotating
perspective views have therefore been misleadingly
called 3-D geologic maps. Such representations have
allowed more information to be gathered on maps, but
this still cannot provide any volumetric underground
information as a true 3-D geologic map should.
The advent of geographic information systems
(GIS) represented a major step forward in the reali-
November Contents
Figure 1. Simplified geologic
map of Lebanon and location
of the studied area (dark frame)
(modified from Dubertret,
1955, 1975, in Walley, 1998).
zation of maps by providing the ability to include
and superimpose several data types. This tool, how-
ever, only allows the manipulation of 2-D maps, which,
when superimposed, do not produce a clear image
of the subsurface, as would be the case for a 3-D
map.
A 3-D map is the representation of geologic units
and structures seen as actual volumes following a 3-D
Dhont et al. 1467
 Search Index Search Results November Contents

matrix (x,y,z) at a given time (t). A geologic unit vol-
ume is defined within two surfaces corresponding to
the layer’s top and bottom. The volume can be further
limited either by fault surfaces (if the geologic unit has
been faulted) or by erosion surfaces. Although such
maps can be constructed from 2-D and/or 3-D seismic
surveys, they are difficult to acquire in areas of rough
topography. The originality of this approach to digital
mapping is that a true 3-D map is built only from
surface data extrapolated to depth. A true 3-D map
represents the only way to precisely quantify geology
by providing, for example, volumetrics and enveloping
surfaces.
Our new technique takes full advantage of a
flexible package (EarthVision1) combined with a data
set that includes the definition of strike and dip of
horizons and faults. This work is unique in that it al-
lows the accurate modeling and volumetric represen-
tation of any structural features in any geologic setting.
The slightest geologic detail, namely, fault offsets or
changes in dip directions, captured from the input data
set can be rendered with accuracy in the 3-D map. The
faithfulness of the final display demonstrates that no
simplification needs to be applied to the input data. The
fact that all intersections between horizons and faults
are automatically calculated renders the study feasible
in a bearable time frame and with a possibility to up-
date the model very easily. Before using this package
and this technique, intersections between faults and
horizons had to be designed grid node by grid node,
making the study of complex faulting impossible; the
fault hierarchy was simply too complex to define in 3-D.
Other packages simply cannot render reverse faults or
Y-shape faults. In these cases, fault verticalization is the
only option. The rendering of such models as volumet-
ric geologic maps, however, leads to errors and mis-
interpretations. Areas with very simple geologic set-
tings could only be modeled, or drastic simplifications
of complex areas had to be applied, which defeats the
purpose of such studies. Moreover, the surface ren-
dering of other packages does not allow the clear un-
derstanding that our volumetric map provides.
MODELING TECHNIQUE
To illustrate the modeling technique, we built a
simplistic dummy model based on a geologic map
(Figure 2a). The geology of the model corresponds to
the superimposition of three layers (yellow, red, and
green) all cut by a single, nearly vertical fault. To gen-
erate a DEM, we first digitized the topographic con-
tours from the geologic map. They are represented
by the black and green lines (Figure 2a) and small
green dots (Figure 2b). We then calculated the DEM
from these points. The elevation value of each digi-
tized geologic feature contour is calculated by its pro-
jection onto the DEM in what is called a ‘‘back-
interpolation’’ process, i.e., the interpolation of the
DEM elevation at the (x,y) locations of the points
forming the digitized contours. The fault surface
(i.e., 2-D grid) is defined first and used to split the
3-D model space into fault blocks (Figure 2c). Using
a cluster of points in each fault block, a numerically
defined surface is then passed through these points to
predict the position of each geologic feature through-
out the fault block volume (Figure 2d). The red ho-
rizon is represented in solid color in one fault block
and transparent in the other. Its volume is limited by
three different surface groups: the model limits, the
horizon limits (top, bottom, and DEM), and the fault
surface. We used the 3-D modeler to intersect the
2-D grids following geologic rules and to generate
layer volumes. The whole volume is assembled from
the bottom up. The oldest layer is modeled first, its
volume defined by its top, eventually by the fault
surfaces when present and by the base of the model.
The overlying layer is defined in the same way, and

Figure 2. Steps used to extrapolate a 2-D geologic map into a 3-D map. The input data (a) are the geologic map alone. It depicts
three layers cut by a single, nearly vertical fault. The black crosses show the points digitized for each geologic feature: the layer tops
and the fault trace. The black and green elevation contours have been digitized to generate the DEM. All data used on the model are
shown in (b). A back-interpolation onto the DEM is applied to define an elevation to each digitized contour represented by yellow,
red, and green dots. Digitized fault points are represented in pink, and the corresponding 2-D grid is shown in (c). The fault splits the
model into two fault blocks. The red horizon is represented in solid color in one fault block and transparent in the other (d). Its
volume is limited by different surfaces: the model limits, the top of the red layer, the top of the yellow layer, the fault surface, and the
DEM. The horizon volumes are defined by their top surfaces; the top of the underlying horizon is therefore the base of the horizon
above (e). The resulting model (f ) shows the relationships between the layers and the DEM because this latter surface has been used
as an erosion to truncate all underlying volumes.

1468 Geohorizons
 Search Index Search Results November Contents

the base of its volume consists of the top of the un- below it, giving the model its 3-D volumetric map
derlying one (Figure 2e). This process is applied for shape (Figure 2f ).
the entire geologic sequence. The DEM truncates Once the preliminary settings are defined in the
each underlying volume and fills all remaining spaces package (mainly geologic rules, fault surfaces shape,

Dhont et al. 1469

 Search Index Search Results November Contents

and fault hierarchy), the computing of the model takes
only minutes. The validation of the model is done in
a trial-and-error process until each geologic layer top
fits its contour on the geologic map, and the global
geometry makes geologic sense. Modifications consist
of moving, adding, or removing input scattered data
points. The back-interpolation of the digitized geo-
logic contours onto the DEM is noisy (abrupt changes
in dip and dip direction) when the contours are defined
by too many points. We experienced that a few well-
picked points giving both a clear dip and location (for
example, the valley-shaped contour in Figure 2a) lead
to a better defined surface.
CASE STUDY
Workflow
The available data used to model the Beirut watershed
are inexpensive or even freely downloaded via the In-
ternet (Figure 3). They consist of (1) a 30-m (100-ft)
ground pixel DEM, derived from the Terra spacecraft
Aster instruments (EOS Web site, http://edcimswww
.cr.usgs.gov/pub/imswelcome/ ); (2) a color composite
Landsat 5 Thematic Mapper image at 28.5-m (93.5-ft)
pixel size (NASA Web site, http://zulu.ssc.nasa.gov
/mrsid); and (3) the scanned 1:50,000 Beirut geologic
map (Dubertret, 1951). The georeferencing of both
the geologic maps has been done using ground control
points referenced from the already georeferenced
DEM. We picked three ground control points evenly
spread on the study area leading to an error less than
100 m (330 ft) in the (x,y) direction. The error in
elevation is directly linked to the quality of the DEM
and lies within a few tens of meters. Considering the
size of the studied area, these values are acceptable. A
more detailed study would have required better input
data, such as a more accurate DEM and a higher reso-
lution image. The power and uniqueness of this real
case study lie in the fact that the 3-D model is fast
to build and easy to update. The first-pass model took
less than 20 hr to set up and compute. Its fine tuning
took about the same time. Updating it takes only a few
minutes because the whole model structure is already
defined. In this process, the geologic surfaces are de-
fined solely from their intersection with the topo-
graphic surface. The layer geometries at depth,
therefore, are obviously extrapolated and may not
correspond to the actual geology. Hence, a model built
this way is only valid close to the surface. Further im-
provements can be made if field measurements, well
surveys, cross section interpretations, etc. are brought
into the modeling process. These measurements pro-
vide valuable information that can be easily added to
the model.
The finalized model was validated once there was
a close to perfect match between the geologic map of
Dubertret (1951), the satellite image, and the inter-
sections of the calculated geologic surfaces with the
DEM. The technique used to build the Beirut water-
shed model follows exactly the steps described in the
section on Modeling Technique. The main difference
resides in the combined use of the satellite image and
the digitized geologic map. The contours were first digi-
tized from the geologic map and then corrected follow-
ing the geomorphic interpretation from the image
draped onto the DEM. The rock contrasts are well
highlighted on the image, thus allowing a more precise
drawing of the geologic contours than from the map
alone. One difficulty resided in the modeling of fault
surfaces. The fault traces on the map are mostly rep-
resented by straight lines leading to the modeling of
vertical surfaces. We corrected some of the fault bed-
dings according to the geologic setting by adding points
to shape their surface. Once the fault geometry and
hierarchy is set, the layer contours have to be adjusted
(1) at depth, because away from the digitized con-
tours, the layer tops are extrapolated by the package;

Figure 3. Data used for the construction of the 3-D geologic model. The topographic surface is derived from the 30-m (100-ft) DEM
obtained from Terra Aster Product, freely available on the Internet. 3 vertical exaggeration. The digitized geologic contours of the
1:50,000 scale sheet of Beirut (Dubertret, 1951) are corrected and georeferenced using the DEM in an interactive process. The
corresponding 2-D grids are calculated and intersected following geologic rules using an earth-modeling package. Each different
geologic unit is then represented as a volume. A layer is made of an assemblage of several fault block volumes. The perspective view
represented here corresponds to the digital geologic contours and faults. Two cross sections are shown and display the relationship
between horizons and faults. Faults are nearly vertical, mostly with a normal component as is depicted on the top of the horizon J5
corresponding to the basement of our geologic sequence for this model. The depth color contouring highlights the deformation of
the J5 horizon along faults.

1470 Geohorizons
Search Index Search Results November Contents

Dhont et al. 1471

 Search Index Search Results November Contents

1472 Geohorizons
 Search Index Search Results November Contents

and (2) at surface level, because inaccurate point lo-
cation leads to erroneous local bedding.
In the western part of the model, the distribution
of points was sufficient to prevent the need for any
adjustments; therefore, the thickness changes and cur-
vatures of the surfaces are strictly caused by the local
dip angle and dip direction calculated from the contour
themselves. Some layers with limited outcrops were
modeled as intermediate surfaces taking their shape
from another layer defined by a better set of points.
This is the case for the J7 (Tithonian) layer that out-
crops only in the northeast of the model, whose shape
is derived from the J6 (Oxfordian – Kimmeridgian).
In the eastern part of the model, the shapes of the
surface below the sea have been modeled in the sim-
plest way possible. The extrapolated part of the ho-
rizon surfaces has been adjusted by adding a few points
at depth below the sea to constrain the dip of all sur-
faces to remain constant and to give the horizons a
constant thickness.
Analysis
The 3-D map makes the geometry of the area under-
standable at first glance, even by nonspecialists, the
relationships between layers and faults being self-
explanatory (Figure 4). Such a 3-D map displays in-
formation on the regional tectonic history, and it is
provided in a way that a simple standard geologic map
cannot display. Graphical representations allow the
user to examine it from various directions, slice it to
generate cross sections, or disassemble it to examine
individual geologic units. We have cut the 3-D model
into four pieces along two cross sections. On the east-
west cross section, the C1 ( Valanginian– Hauterivian)
layer progressively thickens from west to east because
of the subsidence of the eastern part of the area. The
3-D geologic model shows numerous, nearly vertical
faults with a couple of hundred meters throw, bound-
ing grabens a few kilometers in size. The thicknesses
of the C2a (Barremian) and C2b (Aptian) units vary
from one fault block to another, recording the synsed-
imentary fault motion and the filling of the small
grabens during this middle Cretaceous extensional
event. Syntectonic deposition during this time interval
has also been described elsewhere in Lebanon and Syria
(Guiraud and Bosworth, 1997; Fleury et al., 1999;
Sawaf et al., 2001; Homberg et al., 2003). For illus-
trative purposes, we have grouped all layers younger
than C2b together floating above the syntectonic units.
Note that the C3 (Albian) and C4 (Cenomanian) ho-
rizons, although discontinuous on the model caused by
erosion, show a much more constant thickness, sug-
gesting the end of this middle Cretaceous extensional
event.
CONCLUSIONS
From a DEM, a satellite image, and a geologic map
alone, we are able to generate an accurate 3-D geologic
map of the Beirut watershed area (Lebanon) that high-
lights with extreme clarity the structure of the studied
area. Using these data, it is possible to quantify, with as
much accuracy as the input data permit, the geomet-
rical relationships between faults and horizons. The 3-D
geologic map reveals features that standard 2-D geo-
logic maps or satellite images by themselves could not
show. For instance, in the studied area, we display ex-
tensional deformations during the middle Cretaceous
that are expressed by fault throw variations, layer thick-
ness changes, and stratigraphic relationships.
This methodology can be applied to other parts of
the world and to other geologic tasks, using the same
kind of input geologic map, complemented with field
and remotely sensed data where needed and available.
Three-dimensional maps will also prove to be power-
ful tools in other disciplines such as agricultural ir-
rigation, well management, natural risks management,
and mining. The individual units can be augmented
with other attributes, such as rock properties, making
it advantageous to integrate the 3-D map with, for
example, petrophysical modeling.

Figure 4. The 3-D map has been cut along two cross sections (displayed in red in the inset). Each side of the cross section is pushed
away from the other to display the cross section in the lowest layers of the model and its relationship with the neighboring areas. The
geologic sequence has been disassembled into two units. The top unit is shown floating and contains the layers younger than the C2b
horizon. The unit below contains the remaining sequence corresponding to layers older than C3. The advantage of such a 3-D map
is that the geometric relationships between the geologic features are self-explanatory and easy to interpret. The west-east cross
section shows (1) variations in the sediment thickness along the entire cross section for C1, (2) synsedimentary variations in the
thickness of C2a and C2b from one fault block to another, followed by (3) the uniform thickness of C3 and C4.

Dhont et al. 1473

 Search Index Search Results
REFERENCES CITED
Banerjee, S., and S. Mitra, 2004, Remote surface mapping using
orthophotos and geologic maps draped over digital elevation
models: Application to the Sheep Mountain anticline, Wyo-
ming: AAPG Bulletin, v. 88, p. 1227 – 1237.
Berger, Z., T. H. Lee Willams, and D. W. Anderson, 1992, Geologic
stereo mapping of geologic structures with SPOT satellite data:
AAPG Bulletin, v. 76, p. 101 – 120.
Bilotti, F., J. H. Shaw, and P. A. Brennan, 2000, Quantitative struc-
tural analysis with stereoscopic remote sensing imagery: AAPG
Bulletin, v. 84, p. 727 – 740.
Dubertret, L., 1951, Carte géologique de Liban au 1:50,000, Bey-
routh sheet, Paris, Institut Géographique National.
Dubertret, L., 1955, Carte géologique du Liban au 1:200,000,
Beyrouth, Paris, Institut Géographique National.
Dubertret, L., 1975, Introduction à la carte géologique au 1/50,000
du Liban: Notes et Mémoires du Moyen – Orient, v. 13, p. 345 –
403.
Fernandez, O., J. A. Muñoz, P. Arbués, O. Favilene, and M. Marzo,
2004, Three-dimensional reconstruction of geological surfaces: An
example of growth strata and turbidite systems from the Ainsa
basin (Pyrenees, Spain): AAPG Bulletin, v. 88, p. 1049 – 1068.
1474 Geohorizons
November Contents
Fleury J., J. Chorowicz, and J. Somma, 1999, Discussion on trans-
current fault activity on the Dead Sea transform in Lebanon
and its implications for plate tectonics and seismic hazards:
Journal of the Geologic Society (London), v. 154, p. 757 –
760.
Freund, R., Z. Garfunkel, I. Zak, M. Goldberg, T. Weissbrod, and
B. Derin, 1970, The shear along the Dead Sea rift: Philosoph-
ical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, v. 267,
p. 107 – 130.
Guiraud, R., and W. Bosworth, 1997, Senonian basin inversion and
rejuvenation of rifting in Africa and Arabia: Synthesis and
implications to plate-scale tectonics: Tectonophysics, v. 282,
p. 39 – 82.
Homberg, C., E. Barrier, M. Mroueh, W. Hamdan, F. Hijazi, and C.
Müller, 2003, Early Cretaceous and Eocene extensions in
Lebanon: European Geophysical Society Meeting Abstracts,
Nice, v. 5, p. 10,461.
Sawaf, T., G. E. Brew, R. K. Litak, and M. Barazangi, 2001,
Geologic evolution of the intraplate Palmyride basin and
Euphrates fault system, Syria: Peri-Tethys Memoir 6, p. 441 –
467.
Walley, C. D., 1998, Some outstanding issues in the geology of
Lebanon and their importance in the tectonic evolution of the
Levantine region: Tectonophysics, v. 298, p. 37 – 62.