Coccia_etal_Geological_map&3D_Model_Pasubio_Massif_(Southern_Alps_northern_Italy):construction&validation

This geological map and its relative 3D model depicts the geology of an area of 36 square km corresponding to the Pasubio Massif (Trentino Alto-Adige and Veneto regions, Southern Alps, northern Italy). The sedimentary succession cropping out in the study area ranges between the Dolomia Principale (upper Carnian-Rhaetian?) and the Maiolica (Tithonian-upper Barremian), intruded by the Val Lagarina basalt (lower-middle Eocene). The area is affected by the Schio-Vicenza fault system, interpreted as NNW-SSE and NE-SW trending syn-sedimentary faults arranged in an orthorhombic symmetry with a dominant 100°N extension direction, inherited from the Triassic-Jurassic rifting. The geological map has been realized using QGIS software, digitalizing the original draft on paper. The 3D model has been realized with Move software (version IPM 13.5, 2024), exclusively using the geological map as input (no subsurface data were available). It has been constrained through the realization of an evenly spaced grid of geological cross-sections oriented with respect to the average strike direction (8 parallel and 8 orthogonal to bedding). Sections parallel to the strike were spaced 800 m apart, whereas those perpendicular were spaced 600 m apart, providing consistent constraints across the study area. The initial grid was subsequently integrated with 6 additional cross-sections, oriented to intersect specific geological surfaces in complex areas, thereby enhancing the geometric reliability of the 3D model. All the cross-sections were drawn according to field-based geological controls, integrating information on stratigraphic boundaries, field measurements, fault geometries, kinematics and displacements. After construction of the geological cross-sections, the individual horizon lines were interpolated using Ordinary Kriging to generate the 3D stratigraphic surfaces. The resulting model was then subjected to an iterative validation procedure. A first qualitative validation assessed the correspondence between the geological boundaries mapped in the field and those obtained from the intersection of the interpolated horizons with the DEM-derived topography in Move. This was followed by an evaluation of thickness maps to verify whether the modelled horizons reproduced the thicknesses observed in the field. Whenever significant discrepancies were identified, the geological cross-sections were reinterpreted and the horizons re-interpolated. Following this refinement stage, the model underwent a second validation cycle, again including a qualitative comparison between mapped and model-derived boundaries and a reassessment of thickness maps. Once satisfactory agreement was achieved, quantitative validation was performed through the generation of thickness-deviation maps, the calculation of the percentage overlap between mapped and model-interpolated stratigraphic boundaries, and the application of the same overlap analysis to fault surfaces. Finally, after confirming the overall internal consistency of the reconstruction, confidence maps were produced to identify areas of higher and lower model reliability according to the density and type of geological constraints available. The related paper can be reached at https://doi.org/10.3301/IJG.2026.22