The emerging roles of 3D and 4D geophysical and geological modelling in evaluating seismic risks: A critical review

Abstract

Seismic hazard assessment (SHA) is crucial for mitigating earthquake hazards, particularly in tectonically active regions. This study critically examines the emerging roles of 3D and 4D geophysical and geological modelling in assessing SHA, focusing on advancements, applications, and limitations. 3D geophysical modelling provides high-resolution spatial representations of fault networks, stress distributions, and seismic-prone zones. In contrast, 4D geophysical modelling integrates temporal dynamics to analyze subsurface variations or fault systems over time. Based on previous studies, the quantitative data highlight the effectiveness of real-time seismic monitoring, with stress accumulation rates ranging from 0.01% to 50% during seismic events. Time-lapse seismic data improves forecasting precision, with early warning detection reducing seismic uncertainties by over 30%. Additionally, studies show that enhanced fluid migration tracking using 4D seismic modelling, leading to a 25% increase in hydrocarbon recovery efficiency. These advancements aim in urban planning, infrastructure resilience, and hazard mitigation strategies. However, challenges remain in data acquisition, computational demands, and model interpretation. The integration of artificial intelligence and high-performance computing is expected to improve predictive modelling accuracy, ensuring more effective SHA. The findings emphasize the importance of geophysical modelling in disaster preparedness, reinforcing the need for technological advancements to enhance seismic hazard mitigation strategies and infrastructure safety.

Keywords

Seismic hazard assessment / 3D geophysical modelling / 4D geophysical modelling / Hazard mitigation / Fault systems

Ethical approval

I declare that this research is original work carried out by all the authors and that no part of this work has been previously published in any journal. All information provided in this work has been duly acknowledged in the text and the references provided.

Availability of data and materials

All the materials and data used for this research are available online in published works.

Author agreement and acknowledgement

Joseph Omeiza Alao is the sole author of the manuscript. This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Declaration of competing interest

The author has no competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have influenced the work reported in this paper.

References

[1] Alao J.O., Lawal K.M., Dewu B.B., Raimi J., 2023. The evolving roles of geophysical test sites in engineering, science and technology. Acta Geophys. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11600-023-01096-3.

[2] Alao J.O., Lawal K.M., Dewu B.B., Raimi J., 2024. Construction of a multi-purpose geophysical test site on a lateritic clay soil. Arabian J. Geosci. 17, 238. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12517-024-12039-7.

[3] Alao J.O., Lawal K.M., Dewu B., Raimi J., 2025. Near-surface seismic refraction anomalies due to underground target model and the application in civil and environmental engineering. Phys. Chem. Earth, Parts A/B/C 138, 103845. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.pce.2024.103845.

[4] Alao J.O., 2025. The evolving roles of geophysics in environmental assessment, monitoring, and management of landfill leachate contaminant plumes: an overview. CSCEE 101124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cscee.2025.101124.

[5] Amundsen L., Landrø M., 2007. 4d_seismic - status and future challenges. Part 2: future challenges. Recent Advances in Technology. Part I appeared in GEO. ExPro 4 (5), 66-68.

[6] Bacon M., Simm R., Redshaw T., 2015. 3-D Seismic Interpretation. Cambridge University Press.

[7] Bal, I.E., Smyrou E., 2022. Implementation of emerging technologies in seismic risk estimation. In: Vacareanu R., Ionescu C. (Eds.), Progresses in European Earthquake Engineering and Seismology. ECEES 2022. Springer Proceedings in Earth and Environmental Sciences. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-151040_17.

[8] Bapir B., Abrahamczyk L., Wichtmann T., Felipe P., 2023. Soil-structure interaction: a state-of-the-art review of modeling techniques and studies on seismic response of building structures. Front. Built Environ. 9, 1120351. https://doi.org/10.3389/fbuil.2023.1120351.

[9] Bashir Y., Akdeniz D.N., Balci D., 2025. 3D geo-seismic data enhancement leveraging geophysical attributes for hydrocarbon prospect and geological illumination. Phys. Chem. Earth, Parts A/B/C 138, 103854. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pce.2025.103854.

[10] Bauer T.E., Tavakoli S., Dehghannejad M., Garcia M., Weihed P., 2010. 4-Dimensional geological modelling of the skellefte district, Sweden. In:5th International 3D GeoInfo Conference. November 3-4, 2010, Berlin, Germany.

[11] Bawazer W., Lashin A., Kinawy M.M., 2018. Characterization of a fractured basement reservoir using high-resolution 3D seismic and logging datasets: a case study of the Sab'atayn basin, Yemen. PLoS One 13 (10), e0206079. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0206079.

[12] Bellounis L., Bouligand C., Brossier R., Métivier L., Garambois S., 2025. In:A new numerical tool for the 3D forward modeling of potential field geophysical data in the presence of rugged topography using a numerical integration scheme.. https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu25-1139.EGU25-1139.

[13] Bertinelli L., Mahé C., Strobl E., 2023. Earthquakes and mental health. World Dev. 169, 106283. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2023.106283.

[14] Brabers P.M., Sawyer J.F., Errey J., 2017. Mitigating dredging risks using enhanced geophysical methods:the aquares resistivity method. In: Proceedings of the WEDA Conference. Vancouver, Canada, October 25-27, 2017.

[15] Brett H., Hawkins R., Waszek L., Lythgoe K., Deuss A., 2022. 3D transdimensional seismic tomography of the inner core. Earth Planet Sci. Lett. 593, 117688. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.epsl.2022.117688.

[16] Burlington-House, 2019. 4D Subsurface Modelling: Predicting the Future. The Geological Society, Burlington House.

[17] Cao X., Liu Z., Hu C., Song X., Quaye J.A., Lu N., 2024. Three-dimensional geological modelling in Earth science research: an In-Depth review and perspective analysis. Minerals 14 (7), 686. https://doi.org/10.3390/min14070686.

[18] Chang L., Ding Z., Wang C., Flesch L.M., 2017. Vertical coherence of deformation in the lithosphere in the NE margin of the Tibetan Plateau using GPS and shear-wave splitting data. Tectonophysics 699, 93-101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tecto.2017.01.025.

[19] Chang L., Wang C., Ding Z., 2008. Seismic anisotropy of the upper mantle in Sichuan and adjacent regions. Sci. China Earth Sci. 51, 1683-1693. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11430-008-0147-8.

[20] Chen M., 2025. In:Exploring Seismic Monitoring Technologies and Impacts. https://syn apsewaves.com/articles/seismic-monitoring-technologies-impacts/.

[21] Ciucci M., Vezzari V., Marino A., 2022. Smart approach to integrated seismic risk management in major hazard industrial plants. Procedia Struct. Integr. 44, 347-354. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prostr.2023.01.046.

[22] Ctech, 2024. 3D geologic modeling. Earth Sci. https://www.ctech.com/industries/3dgeologic/.

[23] Davies R.J., Stewart S.A., Cartwright J.A., Lappin M., Johnston R., Fraser S.I., Brown A.R., 2004. 3D seismic technology:application to the exploration of sedimentary basins. In: Geological Society,London,Memoirs, vol. 29, pp. 1-9. 0435405210415159 The Geological Society of London 2004.

[24] Estêvão J.M., 2018. An integrated computational approach for seismic risk assessment of individual buildings. Appl. Sci. 9 (23), 5088. https://doi.org/10.3390/app9235088.

[25] Fan X., Scaringi G., Korup O., 2019. Earthquake-induced chains of geologic hazards: patterns, mechanisms, and impacts. Rev. Geophys. 57 (2), 421-503. https://doi.org/10.1029/2018RG000626.

[26] Fiorucci M., Martino S., Antonielli B., 2024. In: Local seismic response in the historical centre of Nafplio (Greece) as a tool for seismic risk management.. https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-5277459/v1.Preprint.

[27] Fuzhong G., Bowen Z., Shengwen Q., Hang L., Huanchun H., Yunyan Y., Huanzhong X., 2024. A review of 3d geological modeling technology and methods. J. Eng. Geol. 32 (3), 1143-1153. https://doi.org/10.13544/j.cnki.jeg.2024-0103.

[28] Garcia B., Lebreton M., Palminteri S., 2023. Experiential values are underweighted in decisions involving symbolic options. Nat. Hum. Behav. 7 (4), 611-626. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-022-01496-3.

[29] Geomodel, 2024. The 26th Scientific and Practical Conference on Geological Exploration and Oil and Gas Field Development, Russia. Gelendzhik, September 9-12, 2024.

[30] Geophysical-Insight, 2025. In: AI Trends in Geoscience Technology - Today and in the near Future. https://www.geoinsights.com/trends-in-geoscience-technology/.

[31] Gigliotti R., Oliveira D.V., 2020. Editorial: recent advances in seismic risk assessment and its applications. Front. Built Environ. 6, 616601. https://doi.org/10.3389/fbuil.2020.616601.

[32] Hasan M., Shang Y., 2022. Geophysical evaluation of geological model uncertainty for infrastructure design and groundwater assessments. Eng. Geol. 299, 106560. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2022.106560.

[33] Herwanger J.V., Bottrill A., Popov P., 2016. One 4D geomechanical model and its many applications. In: 78th EAGE Conference and Exhibition 2016, pp. 1-5. https://doi.org/10.3997/2214-4609.201601368.

[34] Iverson A., Goodway B., Perez M., Purdue G., 2013. Microseismic, 3D and 4D Applications and its Relation to Geomechanics and Completion Performance 38 (1).

[35] Jena R., Pradhan B., Beydoun G., 2020. Seismic hazard and risk assessment: a review of state-of-the-art traditional and GIS models. Arabian J. Geosci. 13, 50. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12517-019-5012-x.

[36] Kato S., 2022. Seismic hazard assessment in earthquake-prone regions. IJGGE 4 (1), 206-209.

[37] KAUST, 2025. Cracking the Code of Megaquakes: inside the 3D Simulation that Changes everything. King Abdullah University of Science & Technology (KAUST).

[38] Kim D., Yoo T., Tran S.V., Lee D., Park C., Lee D., 2024. Automated safety risk assessment framework by integrating safety regulation and 4D BIM-based rule modeling. Buildings 14 (8), 2529. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings14082529.

[39] Klin P., Primofiore I., Garbin M., 2025. In: Physics-Based Simulation of 3d Seismic Site Effects:Case Study of the Lower Sarca Valley (Trentino, Italy). https://ssrn.com/abst ract=5228286.

[40] Liu D., Duan B., Luo B., 2019. EQsimu: a 3-D finite element dynamic earthquake simulator for multicycle dynamics of geometrically complex faults governed by rateand state-dependent friction. Geophys. J. Int. 220 (1), 598-609. https://doi.org/10.1093/gji/ggz475.

[41] Liu J.Z., 2025. Modeling of the blockchain-empowered cloud 4D printing services collaboration digital twin platform oriented on supply-demand. Soft Comput. 29, 977-1004. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-025-10461-x,2025.

[42] Maleki M., Davolio A., Schiozer D.J., 2018. Quantitative integration of 3D and 4D seismic impedance into reservoir simulation model updating in the norne field. Geophys. Prospect. 67 (1), 167-187. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2478.12717.

[43] Martinez I., Viles E., Olaizola G.I., 2021. Data science methodologies: current challenges and future approaches. Big Data Res. 24, 100183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bdr.2020.100183.

[44] Mitra P.P., 2022. 4D seismic for reservoir management. Developments in Structural Geology and Tectonics 6, 285-326. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-323-99593-1.00004-5.

[45] Nanda N.C., 2016. Evaluation of high-resolution 3D and 4D seismic data. In: Seismic Data Interpretation and Evaluation for Hydrocarbon Exploration and Production. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-26491-2_8.

[46] Nanda N.C., 2021. Evaluation of high-resolution 3D and 4D seismic data. In: Seismic Data Interpretation and Evaluation for Hydrocarbon Exploration and Production. Advances in Oil and Gas Exploration & Production. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-75301-6_8.

[47] Niri M.E., 2018. 3D and 4D seismic data integration in static and dynamic reservoir modeling: a review. J. Petro. Sci. Tech. 8 (2), 38-56. https://doi.org/10.22078/jpst.2017.2320.1407.

[48] Niu Z., Gabriel A., Wolf S., Ulrich T., Lyakhovsky V., Igel H., 2025. A discontinuous galerkin method for simulating 3D seismic wave propagation in nonlinear rock models: verification and application to the 2015 Mw 7.8 gorkha earthquake. ArXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/2502.09714.

[49] Odoh B.I., Ahaneku C.V., Madu F.M., 2024. Revolutionizing reservoir management: the paradigm shift of 4D seismic technology. IJSRED 7, 4.

[50] Ogu E., Egbumokei P.I., Dienagha I.N., Digitemie W.N., 2023. Innovative processing adaptations for deepwater seismic data: conceptual advances in 3D and 4D imaging for complex reservoirs. Int. J. Multidiscip. Res. Growth Eval. https://doi.org/10.54660/.IJMRGE.2023.4.1.737-750.

[51] Omeiza A.J., Lawal K.M., Dewu B., Raimi J., 2023. Development of geophysical test sites and its impacts on the research and education activities. Bull. Eng. Geol. Environ. 82, 32. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10064-023-03076-9.

[52] Pears G., Chalke T., 2016. Geological and geophysical integrated interpretation and modelling techniques. ASEG Extended Abstracts 1, 1-7. https://doi.org/10.1071/ASEG2016ab262.

[53] Perkins S., 2019. Seismic tomography uses earthquake waves to probe the inner Earth. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 116 (33), 16159-16161. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1909777116.

[54] Pessina V., Meroni F., 2009. A WebGIS tool for seismic hazard scenarios and risk analysis. Soil Dynam. Earthq. Eng. 29 (9), 1274-1281. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2009.03.001.

[55] Poljansek K., Valles C.A., Ferrer M.M., 2021. Recommendations for National Risk Assessment for Disaster Risk Management in the EU. European Union. https://doi.org/10.2760/80545,JRC123585.ISBN978-92-76-30256-8.

[56] Pratama H., Latiff H.A., 2021. Automated geological features detection in 3D seismic data using semi-supervised learning. Appl. Sci. 12 (13), 6723. https://doi.org/10.3390/app12136723.

[57] Raef A., 2009. Land 3D-Seismic data: preprocessing quality control utilizing survey design pecifications, noise properties, normal moveout, first breaks, and offset. J. Earth Sci. 20 (No. 3), 640-648. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12583-009-0053-9.

[58] Rashidifard M., Giraud J., Lindsay M., Jessell M., 2024. Cooperative geophysical inversion integrated with 3D geological modelling in the boulia region, QLD. Geophys. J. Int. 238 (2), 860-880. https://doi.org/10.1093/gji/ggae179.

[59] Rebetsky Y.L., Stefanov Y.P., 2023. On the mechanism of interaction between strong earthquakes and volcanism in subduction zones. Russ. J. of Pac. Geol. 17 (Suppl. 2), S107-S121. https://doi.org/10.1134/S1819714023080109.

[60] Regueiro M., Alonso-Jimenez A., 2021. Minerals in the future of Europe. Miner Econ 34, 209-224. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13563-021-00254-7.

[61] Rezaei R.P., Naderpour H., 2020. Probabilistic evaluation of seismic resilience for typical vital buildings in terms of vulnerability curves. Structures 23, 314-323. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2019.10.017.

[62] Royer J.J., Mejia P., Caumon G., Collon P., 2015. 3D and 4D geomodelling applied to mineral resources exploration-an introduction. In: Weihed P. (Ed.), 3D, 4D and Predictive Modelling of Major Mineral Belts in Europe. Mineral Resource Reviews. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-17428-0_4.

[63] Sambo C., Iferobia C.C., Babasafari A.A., Rezaei S., Akanni O.A., 2020. The role of time Lapse(4D) seismic technology as reservoir monitoring and surveillance tool: a comprehensive review. J. Nat. Gas Sci. Eng. 80, 103312. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jngse.2020.103312.

[64] Sawyer J., 2025. In: Geophysical 4D Modelling for Geological Site Investigations. https://www.westerndredging.org/phocadownload/2018_Norfolk/Presentations/7B_5.pdf.

[65] Skyttä P., Bauer T., Tavakoli S., Weihed P., 2011. 4-dimensional geological modelling of mineral belts. The Bergforsk Annual Meeting. https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1013326/FULLTEXT01.pdf.

[66] Swallow M., Zulu S., 2019. Benefits and barriers to the adoption of 4D modeling for site health and safety management. Front. Built Environ. 4, 424074. https://doi.org/10.3389/fbuil.2018.00086.

[67] Telford W.M., Geldart L.P., Sheriff E.E., 1990. Applied Geophysics, second ed. Cambridge University Press, New York.

[68] Teodorescu R., Sui X., Vilsen S.B., Bharadwaj P., Kulkarni A., Stroe D., 2022. Smart battery technology for lifetime improvement. Batteries 8 (10), 169. https://doi.org/10.3390/batteries8100169.

[69] Tong Y.S.Y., 2019. Passive crustal clockwise rotational deformation of the Sichuan basin since the Miocene and its relationship with the tectonic evolution of the fault systems on the eastern edge of the Tibetan Plateau. Geol. Soc. Am. Bull. 131, 175-190. https://doi.org/10.1130/b31965.1.

[70] Toosi K.N., 2022. In:Extension of the 3D Geomechanical Model to the 4D Geomechanical Model. https://www.researchgate.net/post/Extension_of_the_3D_ge omechanical_model_to_the_4D_geomechanical_model.

[71] Udoinyang E., Amoyedo S., Omolewa D., Imeokparia Y., Torrez-Perez M.-F., Atoyebi H., Barrault P., 2024. In: Integration of 4D Monitor to Enhance Reservoir Management:a Case Study of Egina Field. https://doi.org/10.2118/221669-MS.

[72] Wang G., Cheng L., Li N., Hou W., 2024. In:3D/4D Geological Modeling for Mineral Exploration, second ed. Snd Edition. Minerals. https://www.mdpi.com/journa 1/minerals/special_issues/G1SK1G14H0.

[73] Wang E., Meng K., Su Z., 2014. Block rotation: tectonic response of the Sichuan basin to the southeastward growth of the Tibetan Plateau along the Xianshuihe-Xiaojiang fault. Tectonics 33, 686-717. https://doi.org/10.1002/2013tc003337.

[74] Wang J., Zhu W., Li H., Qin T., Zhou M., 2025. Three-dimensional geological modeling of thin ore body and complex strata based on multi-point geostatistics. Eng. Geol. 352, 108056. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2025.108056.

[75] Williams P., Gleeson P., 2007. Generating 4D geological maps from regional geophysics. SRK News. Article:. https://www.srk.com/en/publications/generating-4d-geolog ical-maps-from-regional-geophysics.

[76] Wu Z., Guo F., Li J., 2019. The 3D modelling techniques of digital geological mapping. Arabian J. Geosci. 12, 467. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12517-019-4615-6.

[77] Xu Z., Tang N., Xu C., Cheng X., 2021. Data science: connotation, methods, technologies, and development. Data Sci. Manag. 1 (1), 32-37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dsm.2021.02.002.

[78] Yang F., Zhao H., Ma T., Bao Y., Cao K., Li X., 2024. Three-dimensional numerical analysis of seismic response of steel frame-core wall structure with basement considering soil-structure interaction effects. Buildings 14 (11), 3522. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings14113522.

[79] Yu S., Ma J., 2021. Deep learning for geophysics: current and future trends. Rev. Geophys. 59 (3), e2021RG000742. https://doi.org/10.1029/2021RG000742.

[80] Zhan X., Lu C., Hu G., 2022. 3D structural modeling for seismic exploration based on knowledge graphs. Geophysics 87 (3), IM81-IM100. https://doi.org/10.1190/geo2020-0924.1.

[81] Zhang Z., Hamledari H., Billington S., Fischer M., 2018. 4D beyond construction: spatio-temporal and life-cyclic modeling and visualization of infrastructure data. J. Inf. Technol. Construct. 23, 285-304.

[82] Zhang Z., Yao H., Wang W., Liu C., 2022. 3-D crustal azimuthal anisotropy reveals multi-stage deformation processes of the Sichuan basin and its adjacent area, SW China. J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth 127, e2021JB023289. https://doi.org/10.1029/2021JB023289.

[83] Zhao T., Wang S., Ouyang C., 2024a. Artificial intelligence for geoscience: progress, challenges, and perspectives. Innovation 5 (5), 100691. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.xinn.2024.100691.

[84] Zhao Y., Wang M., Ding J.X., 2024b. Data-enhanced revealing of trends in geoscience. J. Data and Inf. Sci. 9 (3), 29-43. https://doi.org/10.2478/jdis-20240023.