G3Dv2_breaks

The fractions are modelled into the base of each package. Only for the Base (10_11_12Silure_Ordovicium_Cambrium) the fractions in the top of the package are visualised. Most of these fractures occur in the deep subsoil (in the top of the Soccle even fractures occur throughout Flanders), with the number of fractures going up in the stratigraphy systematically decreasing with decreasing depth. Thus, in the Devonian and Carboon an important number of fractures occur, in the Cretaceous already less, in the Paleogene and Neogene this number decreases even further and in the Quartair only a few important fractures occur (especially in and around the Roerdalslenk) that are related to deep (more) fractures. In the construction of the 3D model, this geological concept of deep in the subsoil starting and disappearing upwards was used in the basin of the Kempen. In places where there was evidence of the presence of a fracture (e.g. a large difference in depth of the modelled layer plane between two close to each other data points), it was therefore examined whether a fraction should actually be recorded here in the 3D model. If the indication for the rupture was present at several modeled levels and if the literature (in practice mostly the work of Langenaeker 2000) showed that a break was already documented in deeper packages, the fracture was recorded. Of course, this was not frivolously dealt with and only a break was recorded if there were sufficient indications, such as the jump in the low plane already mentioned, but also, for example, the back support of seismic interpretations or geomagnetic observations. However, determining the presence of a fracture (or break zone) with absolute certainty is not always easy. This control is outside the design of the 3D layer model. It should also be borne in mind that the way in which the fractions are proposed within the 3D layer model is inherent in the characteristics and limitations of working with (raster) planes on the scale of Flanders. It is perfectly possible that what is represented in the 3D layer model as a continuous break of tens of kilometers long, in reality a sequence of much shorter fraction fragments. However, the resolution of the 3D layer model does not allow this degree of detail to be attributed to the fractions. In others, too little is known about the exact trajectories of these fractures to map the fracture or fracture zones in detail. This requires extensive, specific study, which falls entirely outside the scope of this 3D modelling. At the incorporation of the fractures in the Neogene and Paleogene became. When the fractures in the Neogene and Paleogene were recorded, a slope of 70° was maintained. When the fractures were inspected in the deeper subsurface, the fractures were subvertically recorded. The Geological 3D model was drawn up under the management agreement of the Flemish government with VITO, under the heading VLAKO, commissioned by the department of LNE — Land and Soil Protection Department, Underground, Natural Resources. For the 3D visualisation on DOV, the lines charts were reconstructed per formation planes to display the fracture planes.