t Special section: Balancing, restoration, and palinspastic reconstruction

Combining multiple quantitative structural analysis techniques

to create robust structural interpretations
Nathan W. Eichelberger1, Amanda N. Hughes2, and Alan G. Nunns1
Downloaded 10/28/15 to 128.111.121.42. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

Abstract
Carefully selected 2D transects contain an abundance of structural information that can constrain 3D analy-
ses of petroleum systems. Realizing the full value of the information in a 2D transect requires combining multi-
ple, independent structural analysis techniques using fully interactive tools. Our approach uses quantitative
structural geologic software that instantaneously displays structural computations and analyses, eliminating
time-intensive manual measurements and calculations. By quickly testing multiple hypotheses, we converged
on an optimal solution that is consistent with available data. We have combined area-depth-strain (ADS) analy-
sis, structural restoration, and forward modeling of a structural interpretation of a fault-propagation fold in the
Niger Delta. These methods confirmed the original interpretation and furthermore quantified displacement,
strain, detachment depth, and kinematic history. ADS analysis validated the interpreted detachment depth
and revealed significant layer-parallel strain (LPS) that varied systematically with stratigraphic depth. The strati-
graphic distribution of the LPS was diagnostic of structural style and, in this example, discriminated against
fixed-axis and constant-thickness fault-propagation folding. A quantitative forward model incorporating back-
limb shear and trishear fault-propagation folding accurately reproduced folding and faulting in the pregrowth
section and folding in the growth section. The model-predicted strain distributions were consistent with those
from ADS analysis. The highest local strains on the back limb of the structure were spatially coincident with two
backthrusts, which accommodated these strains. Animations of a more complete model including the back-
thrusts revealed that the backthrusts formed sequentially as rock passed through the main fault bend.

Introduction locally overpressured shale dominates the base of the

Modern seismic data processing can image structures
with precision, greatly facilitating structural interpreta-
tions. Extracting the maximum amount of geologic infor-
mation from well-imaged data sets requires a combina-
tion of quantitative analysis and modeling methods. This
study demonstrates how area-depth-strain (ADS) analy-
sis and restoration of an interpretation can combine with
forward modeling to quantify and validate structural
geometry. This combined approach to structural analysis
also provides greater insight into strain accommodation
and kinematic history than can be achieved by any single
analytical or modeling technique. Because each of these
methods quantifies similar structural parameters, the ex-
tent to which the results agree raises confidence in the
soundness of a given geologic interpretation.
This study analyzes a contractional anticline in the
deepwater Niger Delta of offshore Nigeria (Figure 1).
The Niger Delta overlies the transition from African
continental crust to early Cretaceous oceanic crust. The
delta sediments are composed of Cenozoic to present-
day marine shale and turbidite deposits. Weak and
sedimentary section (Bilotti and Shaw, 2005). Shal-
lower units consist of alternating beds of pelagic shale,
turbiditic channel-levee systems, and basin floor fans
(Briggs et al., 2006). Progressive sedimentary loading
has resulted in gravitational collapse, accommodated
by normal faulting at the shelf (Doust and Omatsola,
1989; Damuth, 1994; Wu and Bally, 2000). Extensional
deformation in this region links to contractional defor-
mation in the slope and deepwater portions of the delta
via a series of detachments in the overpressured shale
units (Connors et al., 1998; Corredor et al., 2005;
Figure 1).
The fault-related fold studied here (Figure 2) lies in
the outer fold-thrust belt in the western lobe of the Ni-
ger Delta. This structure is a good candidate for inte-
grated structural analysis for the following reasons:
First, the high-quality seismic reflection data image the
structure with little uncertainty, thus permitting a robust
structural analysis (Figure 2). Second, the structure is
simple and 2D enough to interpret confidently, yet is
complex enough that detailed analysis yields new in-

1
StructureSolver, Danville, California, USA. E-mail: nate@structuresolver.com; alan@structuresolver.com.
2
Chevron Energy Technology Co., Houston, Texas, USA. E-mail: amanda.hughes@chevron.com.
Manuscript received by the Editor 15 January 2015; revised manuscript received 25 June 2015; published online 7 October 2015. This paper
appears in Interpretation, Vol. 3, No. 4 (November 2015); p. SAA89–SAA104, 14 FIGS.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1190/INT-2015-0016.1. © 2015 Society of Exploration Geophysicists and American Association of Petroleum Geologists. All rights reserved.

Interpretation / November 2015 SAA89

 sights. Finally, the structure includes a well-preserved
syntectonic sedimentary section, allowing for a detailed
comparison of observed and model-predicted kinematic
structural growth records.
The first step involves examining the relationship be-
tween excess structural area and stratigraphic depth,
using ADS analysis. This analysis quantifies detachment
Downloaded 10/28/15 to 128.111.121.42. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/
depth, displacements, and layer-parallel strains (LPS)
independently of kinematic or mechanical assumptions
(Epard and Groshong, 1993; Groshong and Epard, 1994;
Groshong et al., 2003). The stratigraphic distribution
of LPS discriminates between different styles of fault-
propagation folding. We use a simple restoration tech-
nique to estimate initial and final fault-tip positions.
Building on the information provided by ADS analysis
and restoration, we match the structural interpretation
using structural forward modeling (e.g., Erslev, 1991;
Xiao and Suppe, 1992). The forward models predict the
growth strata geometry, which constrains the struc-
ture’s kinematic history. In addition, forward models
can locate regions of high intraformation strain, where
secondary structures (e.g., minor faulting and folding
contained within the main structure) and/or strain ac-
commodation features (e.g., intraformational faulting,
fractures, and pressure solution fabrics) that fall below
seismic resolution may be concentrated. Collectively,
these methods constrain a detailed sequential structural
model that resolves progressive fold development and
strain accommodation. We do not include the effects of
compaction in this study. For the techniques used here,
the influence of compaction is minor if most compac-
tion in the pregrowth section occurred prior to structur-
ing, and there are not strong lateral and vertical
compaction gradients (Nunns, 1991; Xiao and Suppe,
BENIN
NIGERIA
Translational
Province
CAMEROON
Im Zo
Study
br ne
Area
ic
Extensional Province
at
e
Outer
Fold-Thrust Belt E.Q.
0 75 150 300 km GUINEA
Figure 1. Map of structural provinces at the Niger Delta in
the Gulf of Guinea, offshore Nigeria. Extensional deformation
driven by sediment loading and gravitational collapse on the
continental shelf links to a contractional outer fold-thrust belt
in the distal deepwater portion of the delta. The fault-related
fold analyzed here (Figure 2) is located in the contractional
regime. Province boundaries are after Connors et al. (1998)
and Bilotti et al. (2005).
SAA90 Interpretation / November 2015
1992; Groshong et al., 2003). Based on the stratigraphy
of the region and consistency of the results with obser-
vations, these are reasonable assumptions.
We believe that the general approach presented here
applies for a wide variety of structural settings. The
software used in the study is flexible and fully interac-
tive, with structural computations and analyses in-
stantly responding to interpretation changes or model
parameters adjustments. The dynamic environment fa-
cilitates combining results from multiple techniques to
develop detailed structural models.
Area-depth-strain analysis
ADS analysis is a powerful method of analyzing
structural interpretations. ADS analysis relies on mini-
mal geometric assumptions (conservation of area) and
is independent of mechanical assumptions or kinematic
style (Epard and Groshong, 1993; Groshong and Epard,
1994). The analysis provides estimates of detachment
depth, overall displacements for growth and pregrowth
strata, and estimates of LPS. The internal consistency of
ADS results helps assess the structural integrity of an
interpretation. For valid interpretations, strain and dis-
placement data also provide quantitative insights into
structural style and evolution that would not be appar-
ent from the interpretation alone. These considerations
make ADS analysis a very useful technique during initial
interpretation.
In this study, we used StructureSolver software to
perform ADS analysis of the original interpretation
from Hughes and Shaw (2014). As implemented in
StructureSolver, the analysis is fully interactive and in-
stantaneously updates if the interpretation is changed
(Appendix A). This approach eliminates manual area
measurement, linear statistics, and strain calculations,
making the technique automatic, practical, and fast.
Area-depth-strain results
ADS analysis of the pregrowth horizons interpreted
by Hughes and Shaw (2014) shows a linear variation in
fold area with depth, yielding a detachment depth of
6.76
0.07 km and 770
32 m of displacement (Fig-
ure 3). The best-fit displacement represents the best es-
timate of overall displacement along the detachment
that was responsible for driving structural develop-
ment. Detachment depth and displacement uncertain-
ties were bootstrapped by iteratively removing each
pregrowth horizon from ADS analysis and recomputing
best-fit displacements and detachment depths. Within
uncertainty, the best-fit detachment and the originally
interpreted flat detachment depth are the same (Fig-
ure 3). A break in slope of the area-depth trend occurs
at the top of the interpreted pregrowth, where the fold
area begins to diminish stratigraphically upward (Fig-
ure 3). This break is consistent with transition from pre-
growth to growth strata (Gonzalez-Mieres and Suppe,
2011), validating the stratigraphic location of the transi-
tion in the interpretation. The growth strata record de-
creasing displacements from 687 m at the base of the
 section to <100 m at the top (Figure 3). The upper two
growth horizons record <20% of the total boundary dis-
placement, whereas the lower two growth horizons rec-
ord >45%. If sedimentation rates were constant, this
would indicate that the most rapid structural develop-
ment occurred during deposition of the lower growth
horizons.
Downloaded 10/28/15 to 128.111.121.42. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/
distinctly different structural styles. Fault-bend folding
is unlikely to account for the forelimb fold because any
hypothetical transition from ramp to upper detachment
would cut across well-imaged seismic reflectors. De-
tachment folding followed by fault breakthrough is
not viable because the structural relief on the fold does
not exceed the observed fault throw.

Figure 4 summarizes the variations of area-depth dis-
placement, nominal displacement, and LPS for pre-
growth and growth horizons. The differences between
the nominal displacements (which assume constant line
length) and the area-depth displacements (Figure 4a) re-
present the net changes in bed length that have occurred
during deformation (Appendix A). Variations in the ob-
served bed length are systematic throughout the struc-
ture. These variations are not due to uncertainties in
the interpretation because the section cannot be reason-
ably interpreted to make all of the pregrowth horizons
the same length (i.e., a classically “bal-
anced” section, after Dahlstrom, 1969).
For instance, the nominal displacement
for horizon G is approximately 500 m less 3.0
The exact style of fault-propagation folding is not ap-
parent from direct observation of the section, but can
be inferred from the variation of LPS within the struc-
ture. Figure 5 shows ADS analyses for models of con-
stant-thickness, fixed-axis, and trishear fault propa-
gation folds. In each case, there is a linear relationship
between the fold area and depth, and the detachments
depths are correctly predicted (Figure 5). However, the
LPS profiles for each of these models differ signifi-
cantly, reflecting the differing ways in which displace-
ment and folding are accommodated.

than the area-depth displacement (Fig-

3.5
ure 4a). This indicates the bed length
of horizon G decreased by approximately 4.0
500 m during development of the struc-
ture. The LPS is contractional for each
Depth (km)

4.5
horizon (<0), consistent with nominal
displacements that are less than the ADS 5.0
displacement (Figure 4b). As noted
5.5
above, this relationship implies that hori-
zons have been shortened by LPS. The 6.0
magnitudes of the contractional LPS in-
crease systematically upward from the 6.5
basal detachment to a maximum (−7.2%)
1 km
at the top of the pregrowth section (Fig- 7.0
ure 4b). The top pregrowth horizon (G),
interpreted to be exclusively folded with
3.0
no fault offset, has the highest LPS
(−7.2%) and the lowest nominal displace- 3.5
ment (193 m). The LPS and nominal dis-
placement decrease in tandem from the 4.0
top of the pregrowth section upward
through the growth section (Figure 4).
Depth (km)

4.5
The clear relationship between structural
position and magnitude of layer-parallel 5.0

shortening suggests a causal relationship

5.5
between the mechanism of structural
growth and layer-parallel shortening. 6.0

Area-depth-strain discussion: Infer- 6.5

ences for structural style 1 km
Hughes and Shaw (2014) interpret 7.0 Data owned and provided courtesy of CGG, Crawley, UK

the structure as a fault-propagation fold,

based on the decrease in fault offset
with distance along the fault trace and
on the pattern of forelimb folding. We
agree with this interpretation and note
that observed geometries rule out other
Figure 2. (Top) Uninterpreted and (bottom) interpreted seismic reflection im-
age of a fault-propagation fold from the Niger Delta as originally published by
Hughes and Shaw (2014). Pregrowth horizons are lettered A-G, and the inter-
preted growth horizons are shown in light yellow. The lower horizon (base)
and the detachment for the system are thought to reside within an overpressured
shale.

Interpretation / November 2015 SAA91

 The constant-thickness fault-propagation fold model
(Suppe and Medwedeff, 1990) assumes that the bed
length is constant; therefore, bed-length displacement
is equal to constant area displacement (ADS boundary
displacement). As a result, there is no LPS in any bed
(Figure 5a). Conversely, fixed-axis fault-propagation
fold models allow for limb thickness changes by alter-
Downloaded 10/28/15 to 128.111.121.42. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/
observation supports our subsequent use of trishear
forward modeling to reproduce the structure. Qualita-
tively, the LPS variation in a trishear fold is due to the
variation in the way that shortening is accommodated
depending on stratigraphic position within the struc-
ture. In an ideal trishear fold, horizons that reside below
the initial fault tip point (below the fault-propagation

ing the bed length (Jamison, 1987; Suppe and Medwe-
deff, 1990). In an ideal fixed-axis fault-propagation fold,
the LPS magnitude increases stratigraphically upward
from the main detachment toward a maximum at the
fault tip, and then it remains constant for horizons
above the final fault tip (Figure 5b). Trishear fault-
propagation folding (Erslev, 1991) predicts more spa-
tially variable patterns of bed thinning and thickening
depending on trishear parameters (Figure 6a). For trish-
ear models similar to those shown in Figure 5c, aggre-
gate LPSs are contractional and increase upward from
the basal detachment. However, in contrast with fixed-
axis folding, LPS continues to increase in magnitude
above the fault tip to the top of the fold.
The observed LPS profile for the studied structure
(Figure 3) is consistent with trishear folding (Figure 5c)
but not with the theoretical strain profiles for constant
thickness and fixed axis folds (Figure 5a and 5b). This
zone, Figure 6a) exhibit the largest fault offsets but
are not folded (Williams and Chapman, 1983; Hughes
and Shaw, 2014). Theoretical models predict that LPS
for these horizons is minimal as strain is localized as
fault slip (Hardy and Ford, 1997). Conversely, horizons
that reside above the initial fault tip (within the fault-
propagation zone, Figure 6a) experience an early phase
of folding followed by fault breakthrough and displace-
ment along the fault (e.g., Dahlstrom, 1977) (Figure 6b).
Consequently, horizons above the initial fault tip record
lower fault offsets but greater folding and strain (Hardy
and Ford, 1997; Allmendinger, 1998) than horizons
stratigraphically below the interval at which fault
propagation occurs.
ADS analysis of the interpretation shows that LPS
magnitude increases linearly upward from horizon A
to G, whereas the total observed fault slip decreases
(Figure 7). Nominal displacement also progressively de-

Layer parallel strain

–770 (–334, –6.0%)
4: –66 (–2, –1.0%)
Nominal displacement
3: –137 (–9, –1.9%)
Best-fit displacement

2: –356 (–44, –4.6%)

1: –687 (–170, –7.2%)

G: –770 (–193, –7.2%)
F: –770 (–270, –6.9%)
E: –770 (–489, –3.6%)
D: –770 (–536, –3.2%)
C: –770 (–532, –3.3%)
Depth (m)

B: –770 (-562, –2.9%)

A: –770 (-661, –1.5%)

–770 (-334, –6.0%)

–770 (R 2 = 0.98)
Best-fit detachment Area (m 2) 1 km

Figure 3. ADS analysis of the original interpretation from Hughes and Shaw (2014). Pregrowth horizons are lettered A-G, and
growth horizons (green) are numbered 1–4. The area-depth plot is overlain on the interpretation with the depth axis represented by
a solid black line. Squares indicate where each horizon plots in area-depth space with filled squares indicating the pregrowth
horizons and hollow squares representing the growth horizons. The pregrowth area-depth points are used in the linear best
fit (light dashed line) to determine best-fit displacement and detachment depth. The position of the best-fit detachment depth
is shown by the heavy, dashed black line. At the left, the ADS boundary displacement vector and R2 value for the linear fit
are shown in black at the best-fit detachment depth. For each horizon, the best-fit displacement, nominal displacement, and
LPS are color coded by horizon (nominal displacement and LPS are reported within parenthesis). Arrows are the best-fit displace-
ment vectors, and the small vertical line represents the tail position of the nominal displacement vectors (here, nominal displace-
ment is uniformly lower than ADS displacement).

SAA92 Interpretation / November 2015

 creases upward from horizon A to G (Figure 4). Horizon structural complexity and strain accommodation. The
A exhibits low strain and minimal folding but relatively first model reproduces the structure using a single lis-
high fault slip and nominal displacement (Figures 4 and tric fault, aggregating the strain associated with the
7). Conversely, horizon G is exclusively folded and has
the highest LPS but the least nominal displacement
(Figures 4 and 7). From the theoretical expectations a)
3000
discussed above, the ADS results suggest that horizon 4
Downloaded 10/28/15 to 128.111.121.42. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

3
A was outside the fault-propagation interval, at or be- 3500
low the initial fault tip point. Horizon G is above the fi- 2

Stratigraphic depth (m)

4000
nal fault tip (no offset), and its ADS results are a horizon 1
that accommodated fault propagation exclusively by G 4500
folding and strain. F
E 5000
D
C
Fault tip locations B 5500
A
Key parameters in trishear forward models are the 6000
initial and final fault tip points (Figure 6a). The strati-
graphic position of these points can be located for Base Area-depth 6500
individual faults by analyzing fault-displacement gra- Nominal
7000
dients (Hughes and Shaw, 2014). Using this approach, –900 –800 –700 –600 –500 –400 –300 –200 –100 0
Hughes and Shaw (2014) observe a linear decrease in Displacement (m)
fault offset from a maximum at horizon A to zero just b)
3000
4
below horizon G, and they thereby determine that the 3
main fault started propagating near the level of horizon 3500

A (initial tip point) and finished propagating just below 2

Stratigraphic depth (m)

4000
the level of horizon G (final tip point). 1
G
We can similarly refine the likely initial fault tip loca- 4500
tion by restoring the entire structure based on unstrained F D
5000
E
horizons (such as A, Figures 4 and 7) to reveal the strati-
graphic location, where folding and strain began to con- C 5500
B
sume the fault slip. The instantaneous restoration of A
6000
horizon A (Figure 8) uses the algorithm described by
Nunns (1991), which combines constant slip restoration 6500
Base
along faults with simplified vertical shear within fault 7000
blocks. Because the actual folding mechanism is more
–9

–8

–7

–6

–5

–4

–3

–2

–1

0%
.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0
complex than vertical shear, the restoration is not a true
%

retrodeformation of the section above horizon A. How-
ever, it provides an insightful instant transformation of
the interpretation that helps us to understand the propa-
gation history for the main fault and the back thrusts.
The restoration shows good seismic continuity below the
flattened horizon A, supporting the location of the initial
tip point for the main fault (Figure 8). There is an increas-
ing amount of residual (normal) slip up the main fault
toward horizon G, reflecting the interval of fault propa-
gation. The residual slips relate inversely to the offsets
determined by Hughes and Shaw (2014). The restoration
also shows that the backthrusts propagated over a
shorter stratigraphic interval than the main thrust. On
the upper backthrust, residual slip is negligible up to
horizon B and then increases, indicating that the initial
tip point for this fault lies between horizons B and C. On
the lower back thrust, residual slip is negligible up to D
and then increases, indicating that the initial tip point for
this fault lies just above horizon D.
Structural forward modeling
To investigate the kinematics associated with the
structure, we developed two quantitative structural for-
ward models that represent end members in terms of
%
Layer parallel strain
Figure 4. Plots of ADS analysis results for interpreted hori-
zons. In both plots, filled markers represent pregrowth and hol-
low markers represent growth strata. (a) Displacement profile
by stratigraphic depth. Area-depth (true) displacements are
shown by triangles and nominal (constant bed length) dis-
placements are shown by squares. For the pregrowth, true dis-
placement is constant (770 m, Figure 3), whereas nominal
displacement continually decreases stratigraphically upward.
The difference in displacement for each horizon (dashed black
lines) represents the change in bed length during deformation.
Horizon G records the largest greatest bed length change
(>500 m reduction). In the growth section, true and nominal
displacements decrease upward as a consequence of time-vary-
ing deposition during deformation. (b) LPS by stratigraphic
depth. LPS represents the magnitude of bed length change dur-
ing deformation relative to the true restored section length.
Horizons with the greatest difference between area-depth and
nominal displacement record the greatest LPS. The pregrowth
horizons record increasing bed length shortening (negative
LPS) stratigraphically upward. LPS then diminishes in magni-
tude upward through the growth section. In both plots, the
basal horizon deviates from this trend. If the horizon geometry
is accurately interpreted, the deviation may be due to nonho-
mogeneous strain related to lithology (e.g., overpressured
shale). The LPS profile for A-G is consistent with strain profiles
predicted by trishear fault-propagation fold models.

Interpretation / November 2015 SAA93

 main fault curvature in a continuous backlimb fold. The
second model features greater structural complexity,
linking models for the main thrust and the two back-
thrusts included in the original interpretation, thereby
more accurately representing the backlimb deforma-
tion and kinematic history.
Downloaded 10/28/15 to 128.111.121.42. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/
gle fault model, the free variables in our models are the
shape of the fault, together with its initial and final tip
depths, the trishear angle, the axial shear angle at fault
bends, the amount of slip, and regional horizon depths
for the hanging wall and footwall. These variables allow
for arbitrary modeling of pregrowth and growth stratig-
raphy. They also fully specify fault displacement history

Forward modeling methodology and fault propagation assuming a constant propagation-

The forward models combine symmetric trishear
(Erslev, 1991; Zehnder and Allmendinger, 2000) for
fault-propagation folding, together with inclined shear
at fault bends (Xiao and Suppe, 1992) to model back-
limb geometries. These models conserve area. For a sin-
to-slip ratio. Modeling in StructureSolver is fully in-
teractive, so the modeled fold geometry seamlessly up-
dates as model parameters are graphically manipulated.
This enabled us to quickly estimate the trishear param-
eters and fault geometries that provide the best visual

a) Constant thickness

–0.2%
–0.1%
–0.3%
0.1%
0.2% Negligible
0.1%
–0.3% LPS
0.2%
0.1%
0.5%
–1034 m
(R 2 = 0.999)
b) Fixed-axis

–4.7%
–4.5%
–4.6% Constant
–4.4% LPS
–4.3%
–4.3%
–4.4%
–3.3% Increasing
–2.3%
LPS
–1.3%
–1033 m
(R 2 = 0.999)
c) Trishear

–10.3%
–10.1%
–9.9%
–9.4% Increasing
–8.5%
–5.8% LPS
–3.3%
–2.3%
–1.5%
–1056 m
(RSq: 1.000)

Figure 5. ADS analysis of constant-thickness, fixed-axis, and trishear fault-propagation fold models. In each model, horizontal
displacement is approximately 1 km, fault dips are all 20°, and the final fault tip point is at the middle green horizon. An area-depth
plot is overlain on each model with the depth axis shown by a solid black line. Squares indicate where each horizon plots in area-
depth space with the linear best-fit indicated by the dashed black line. The position of the best-fit detachment depth is shown by the
heavy, dashed black line and is consistent with the detachment location in each model. The ADS boundary displacement vector
and R2 value for the linear fit are shown in black at the best-fit detachment depth (right side of figure). For each horizon, colored
arrows are the best-fit ADS displacement vectors and small vertical lines mark the tail position of the nominal (constant bed length)
displacement vectors. Because the models do not have a growth section, the ADS displacement is constant for each horizon. LPS is
reported for each horizon to the right of the models. Note that ADS analysis correctly estimates the displacement and detachment
depth for each model.

SAA94 Interpretation / November 2015

 fit to the original data and interpretation. The resulting a)
model can be animated forward or backward in time to Initial trishear Trishear
boundary angle
show the progression of deformation and the dynamic Final trishear
development of strain. boundary
To link multiple models, we automatically determine P
the fault branching topology and appropriately splice Final tip point
the footwall and hanging wall domains from adjacent Initial tip point
Downloaded 10/28/15 to 128.111.121.42. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

models. During kinematic animation, we translate de-

pendent fault blocks according to the spatially correct P = Propagation distance
throws and heaves associated with underlying faults. As b)
a practical simplification, internal deformation fields
between faults do not interfere (i.e., the linkage is trans-
lational). Despite this simplification, we find that linked
modeling provides significant insight compared with
single-fault modeling.

Single-fault model results

The single fault model is a structurally simplified rep-
resentation that ignores the interpreted backthrusts but
honors the interpreted main fault geometry and the in-
ferred initial and final fault tip positions. Although the
backthrusts are not included, the model matches the pre-
growth and growth horizon geometries well (Figure 9).
The single-fault model features and fit to data are dis-
cussed below in detail for the forelimb and backlimb.
We then compare strains from the model with those de-
termined separately from ADS analysis (Figure 3).
Forelimb
The trishear forward model predicts hanging wall
and footwall fold geometries in the forelimb that repro-
duce the interpreted horizons within 100 m (Figure 9).
Uncertainties this small may be within the error asso-
ciated with seismic processing. The location of the ini-
tial fault tip point is based on results from the re-
storation. The location of the final fault tip point is
taken from the interpretation. Minor adjustments were
made to obtain a visual best fit: Permissible trishear an-
gles are between 37° and 40°, and possible propagation-
p
Sli
Figure 6. Example of a trishear fault-propagation fold model.
(a) Fault parameters are used in trishear modeling. The initial
tip point marks the location at which the fault began to propa-
gate up-section. The final tip point is where the fault propa-
gation terminated. The distance between the points is the
propagation distance (P). The trishear zone is the triangular
region between the trishear boundaries, whose area is a func-
tion of the trishear angle. (b) The symmetric linear trishear
velocity field (Zehnder and Allmendinger, 2000) and fault-
propagation fold geometry. Velocity vectors (dark gray ar-
rows) decrease in magnitude from the hanging wall to the
footwall and are shown here for the final fault tip position.
Horizons (light gray) initially within the trishear zone are
folded based on the trishear velocity field. The black arrows
show the total fault slip.
0
4 –1
A 3
–2

Layer parallel strain (%)

to-slip ratios are between 2.5 and 2.9. The quantitatively D –3
B
modeled growth strata fit folded seismic reflectors in E
C –4
the growth section to within 50 m (Figure 9) using a 2
–5
constant expansion ratio of 0.73. This indicates that the
ratio of uplift rate to sedimentation rate remained rel- Base –6

atively constant throughout the growth history of the F 1 –7

structure. The largest deviations between the model
and the interpretation occur in the pregrowth section
in the footwall of the main fault, where the horizon dips
were interpreted to be greater over a broader area away
from the fault (see horizons D-F in Figure 9). If the ob-
served footwall curvature is real (and not due to unac-
counted-for variations in seismic velocity), then the
difference between the predicted and observed foot-
wall geometry indicates that the actual trishear velocity
field may not be symmetric as assumed by the model.
However, the modeled horizon positions in the footwall
match the interpreted regional elevations of each
horizon (within 50 m) in the distal updip flat portion
Growth –8
Pregrowth G
–9
–1000 –900 –800 –700 –600 –500 –400 –300 –200 –100 0
Total observed fault slip (m)
Figure 7. Plot of LPS against total observed fault slip, which
is the cumulative fault-parallel offset on each horizon as mea-
sured along the three faults in the original Hughes and Shaw
(2014) interpretation. There is a linear relationship between
LPS and the total observed fault slip with LPS generally in-
creasing as fault displacement decreases upward (A-G) from
the detachment. The basal horizon deviates from this se-
quence but still falls along the linear trend. The growth hori-
zons are not offset by any fault and thus record diminishing
strain as folding becomes more subdued toward the surface.

Interpretation / November 2015 SAA95

 of hanging wall, which presumably reflects the unde-
formed regional elevation (Figure 9).
Backlimb
ADS analysis constrains the detachment depth at
6.7 km with a high degree of confidence (Figure 3).
Downloaded 10/28/15 to 128.111.121.42. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/
Given that depth and the observed fault dip (approxi-
mately 48°), the angle of the shear axes at the main fault
bend must be between 46° and 49° to reproduce the flat
crest of the structure (Figure 9). The orientation and
location of the shear axes parallel the backthrusts in
the interpretation (Figure 2). The fault bend shear in
the simplified model is resolved as back-

thrusts in the actual structure. The sim-

plified model does not reproduce the
segmented, low-dip panels on the back-
limb of the structure. As a result, the
model underpredicts the backlimb dip
for horizon G and the growth section,
deviating from horizon picks by approx-
imately 100 m.

Strain distribution
Finite strains for each surface within
the model are calculated from the defor-
mations of infinitesimal squares that are
embedded in the undeformed surface.
As these squares pass through shear
zones (either trishear or shear axes re-
lated to fault bends), they deform into
parallelograms. The orientations and
magnitudes of finite strains are com-
Data are owned and provided courtesy of CGG, Crawley, UK
puted from the transformations between
Figure 8. Restored section achieved by removing fault offset recorded by hori-
squares and parallelograms (Allmen-
zon A (cyan). dinger et al., 2012), and then they are de-
picted using strain ellipses (Figure 10).
The finite strain at any point on a mod-
eled surface resolves into layer-parallel
Initial trishear 38˚
boundary Final trishear and layer-perpendicular scalar strain
3 boundary components, together with a layer-paral-
lel shear component.
High LPSs in the single fault model
are concentrated in two areas: in the
4
trishear zone for the main fault and in
the backlimb fold associated with the
Depth (km)

deep fault bend (Figure 10). Modeled

5 strains in the trishear zone are asymmet-
rically distributed and concentrated
within the footwall. The highest magni-
tude LPSs of −30% to −40% (contraction)
6 Initial fault Final fault occur in the footwall trishear zone adja-
tip point tip point cent to the main fault. LPSs in the hang-
ing wall are much lower, ranging from
1 km −5% to 5%. Strains diminish radially to
7
zero toward the trishear boundaries
Data are owned and provided courtesy of CGG, Crawley, UK
and away from the final fault tip point.
Figure 9. Structural forward model constrained by original interpretation with Horizon A shows no strain because it re-
additional constraints from ADS analysis and structural restoration. The inter- sides below the initial fault tip point out-
preted structural geometry is simplified to a single listric fault, and backthrusts side of the zone of trishear fault prop-
from the original interpretation are omitted. Structural geometry in the forelimb agation. Modeled LPSs in the backlimb
is defined by trishear fault propagation folding between the initial and final fault fold range from −15% to −25% and are
tip points. The backlimb geometry is defined by inclined shear axes at 47°, par-
allel to the backthrust orientation in the original interpretation (Figure 2). Solid
concentrated within the area of greatest
lines represent modeled horizon geometry, whereas dashed lines are from the backlimb dip (>14°, Figure 10). Animat-
original interpretation. Green horizons represent the growth section predicted ing the structural development of the sin-
by the forward model. gle fault model (Animation 1 is a supple-

SAA96 Interpretation / November 2015

 mental file that can be accessed through the following
link: s1.mp4) demonstrates that the high strain concen-
tration in the backlimb is due to movement of rock
through the main fault bend. The high backlimb strain
area is spatially coincident with the backthrusts from
the original interpretation (Figure 2). The kinematic con-
sistency between the model-predicted strains and the in-
Downloaded 10/28/15 to 128.111.121.42. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/
gesting that the strata above the shale detachment (Fig-
ure 2) are mechanically homogeneous with low layer
strength contrasts. In this case, high strain regions in
the kinematic models may correlate with pervasive de-
formation that cuts across bedding. Small-scale faults,
fractures, deformation bands, stylolites, and/or grain-
scale deformation are all plausible strain accommoda-

terpreted structure indicates that the strain associated tion mechanisms.

with moving material through the fault bend was concen-
trated as slip on the backthrusts. No strain is predicted
for the crest of the structure or in the flat distal hanging
wall because these areas never passed through the shear
axes associated with the fault bend or the zone of trish-
ear fault-propagation zone.
Estimates of finite strain in geologic structures
depend strongly on the scale of observation and assess-
ment. This is because deformation is often partitioned
across mechanisms that operate at the microscale (grain
boundary migration), mesoscale (joints, fractures, and
beds), and macroscale (faults and fold limbs). If a kin-
ematic model with geologically appropriate constraints
and boundary conditions matches multiple geometric
features observed within a structure, then the scale of
the model strain estimates is the same as the scale at
which the model matches the structural geometry.
The applicable scale for the model strains in this study
is limited to the average stratigraphic thickness between
modeled surfaces (approximately 300 m) and the aver-
age half-wavelength of modeled folds (approximately
450 m). For comparison, this is approximately the size
of a very large cliff face. The kinematic model strains
could be consistent with many different finite strain dis-
tributions at smaller scales.
Kinematic models do not explicitly
incorporate mechanical properties, and
therefore they do not make specific 3
predictions of the mechanisms or distri-
butions of smaller scale strain accom-
modation features. Strains from
kinematic models for different fault-re- 4
lated folding styles correlate to varying
degrees with strain accommodation fea-
Depth (km)
Comparison of displacements and strains from model and
area-depth-strain analysis
Figure 11a shows that there is broad consistency be-
tween the displacements predicted by the single fault
forward model (Figure 9) and those obtained from
ADS analysis (Figures 3 and 4). Overall, the displace-
ment patterns match very well considering the uncer-
tainties in the two different techniques by which they
were derived. This similarity supports the conclusion
that ADS displacements are a reliable estimate of the
true displacements along the detachment.
To compare modeled strains with the LPS from ADS,
which are intrinsically aggregated over the entire analy-
sis region, we integrated the local LPS from the model
(Figure 11b). Aggregate LPSs in the forward model
range from 1% to −6%, consistent in magnitude with
ADS analysis of the interpretation. Averaging the sur-
face parallel strains over the model hanging wall and
footwall surfaces confirms ADS results showing a
systematic relationship between fault offset and LPS
(Figure 7). In the model, surfaces outside of the trishear
fault-propagation zone (base, A) have no LPS in the
footwall and approximately −5% aggregate LPS in the

tures in field examples, such as shear Surface-parallel

bands, fractures, and pressure solution
fabrics (Hennings et al., 2000; Storti
and Salvini, 2001; Salvini and Storti,
2004; Brandenburg et al., 2012; Watkins
et al., 2015). Mechanical modeling by
Hughes and Shaw (2015) shows that
trishear style deformation is favored in
more mechanically homogeneous sec-
tions, whereas constant-thickness, flexu-
ral slip fault-propagation folds form more
readily in rocks with high mechanical
layer strength contrasts. As discussed
above, forward modeling (Figure 9)
and the ADS layer-parallel strain distribu-
tions (Figures 3 and 7) are consistent
with trishear style deformation, sug-
5 angular shear
6 Model
Interpreted strain
High
backthrust locations
Maximum backlimb
Low
strain zone
1 km
7
Figure 10. Finite strain associated with the listric fault model in Figure 9. Strain
ellipses are shown in key areas where the surface-parallel strain is sustained at
high values (>15%) in the backlimb and forelimb. Circular strain ellipses mark
the boundaries of areas with no finite strain. The schematic shading shows the
distribution of strain from high (red) in regions within the forelimb trishear and
backlimb shear axis zones to low (blue) outside of these areas. The surface-par-
allel angular shear direction is constant in the backlimb but switches across the
trishear zone (white arrows).

Interpretation / November 2015 SAA97

 a) 3000 hanging wall (Figure 11b). The modeled aggregate
4
hanging wall strain for these surfaces is entirely due to
3 the fault bend fold in the back limb because these sur-
3500
faces reside outside of the trishear zone (Figure 9). For
2 modeled surfaces within the fault-propagation zone
4000 (Figure 9), aggregate LPSs in the footwall are all con-
1 tractional and increase in magnitude through the pre-

Stratigraphic depth (m)

Downloaded 10/28/15 to 128.111.121.42. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

G 4500 growth from −1% (B) at the base to −6% (G) at the top
F (Figure 11b). Modeled surfaces within the trishear zone
E
5000 (B-G) are substantially extended in the immediate vicin-
D
ity of the fault (this process can be seen in Animation 1,
C which is a supplemental file that can be accessed
B 5500
through the following link: s1.mp4). In the ADS analysis
A
of the interpretation (Figure 3), these extensional
6000 strains are resolved as discrete offsets, and no addi-
tional bed length is associated with fault zone deforma-
Base 6500 tion. Accordingly, the aggregate surface strains from
Model the model show less contraction compared with ADS
Area-depth because they incorporate this component of extension
7000
–900 –800 –700 –600 –500 –400 –300 –200 –100 0 (Figure 11). The modeled horizons with the least fault
Displacement (m) displacement show progressively greater contractional
b) 3000 strains, consistent with the strain trends from ADS
4
analysis of the interpretation (Figure 3) and theoretical
3
3500 trishear models (Figure 5c).
Model strain
2 Hanging wall Multiple fault model results
Average 4000
Footwall
Accurately defining the linked kinematic evolution of
1 the main fault and both backthrusts is crucial for under-
Stratigraphic depth (m)

Interpretation strain
G ADS 4500 standing the timing of potential trap formation relative
F to the timing of hydrocarbon charge and seal develop-
E
5000 ment. The backthrusts are kinematically important for
D
several reasons. First, the single fault model (Figure 9)
C
B 5500
showed high surface parallel, contractional strains
A
(−20% to −30%) concentrated in the same area as the
backthrusts. In that model, the strains were associated
6000
with translation of material through the main fault bend
(Animation 1 is a supplemental file that can be accessed
Base 6500 through the following link: s1.mp4). Second, the single-
fault model deviated from the data and interpretation
7000 in this area, predicting steeper surface dips in the pre-
growth section and less backlimb concavity in the
–9

–8

–7

–6

–5

–4

–3

–2

–1

0
1.

2.

3.
0%

0%

0%
.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0
%

growth section (Figure 9). This difference suggests that

Layer parallel strain
the backthrusts significantly influenced the backlimb
Figure 11. Comparison of displacements and strains pre- geometry by accommodating the strain associated with
dicted by the listric fault forward model (Figure 9) and ADS the main fault bend. A model with multiple faults
analysis (Figures 3 and 4). (a) Displacement profile by strati- validates the interpreted backthrust geometries and
graphic depth. Circles show boundary displacements from the compatibility of displacements between the back-
forward modeling, and squares show displacements from thrusts and the main fault. The multiple-fault model also
ADS analysis. In the pregrowth (horizons A-G), modeled dis-
improves the match to the syntectonic growth strata,
placements are 100 m greater than those determined by ADS
analysis. The greatest observed misfit between model geom- increasing confidence that the kinematic model accu-
etry and interpreted horizon positions occurs near the inter- rately represents the growth of the structure.
preted backthrusts (Figure 2) suggesting the discrepancies Separate structural forward models were con-
shown here are mostly due to their absence in the single fault structed for each backthrust and combined with the
model. (b) LPS profile by stratigraphic depth. Model strains structural model for the main fault (Figure 9). In order
are grouped by rectangles with circles showing the hanging for the models to be structurally consistent, the model
wall, average, and footwall strains for each horizon. Black
squares are the LPS from ADS, which consider the entire surfaces for each fault must align with those from the
length of the horizon. The model strains accurately reproduce adjacent faults, placing strict constraints on permissible
the upward increase in layer-parallel shortening observed fault displacements. Thus, the surface levels must align
from ADS analysis and are equivalent within 2%. between the hanging wall of the upper backthrust and

SAA98 Interpretation / November 2015

 the hanging wall of the main fault (Figure 2) and be-
tween the footwall of the upper backthrust and the
hanging wall of the lower backthrust. The surfaces in
the footwall of the lower backthrust must match the
regional structural elevations above the flat detach-
ment. Based on the preceding ADS and model analysis,
the regional elevation for the horizons and the main
Downloaded 10/28/15 to 128.111.121.42. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/
fault displacement are well constrained. Fixing these
variables leaves only the levels of surfaces in the lower
backthrust hanging wall and upper backthrust footwall
as free parameters. The backthrusts were modeled as
trishear fault-propagation folds using constraints on
fault tip point locations gained from the structural resto-
ration (Figure 8). The backthrust models were then in-
teractively adjusted to achieve the best fit to the data
within the given constraints.
The multiple-fault model has more structural fidelity
in the pregrowth than the single listric fault model and
fits each interpreted horizon within 100 m at any given
location (Figure 12). Matching the modeled upper back-
thrust footwall and lower backthrust hanging wall re-
quired including the lower backthrust bend from the
original interpretation (Figure 2). Initial attempts to
model the backthrusts as planar (and therefore constant
fault offset) showed that horizons A-C or D-G could be
matched between the faults, but not the entire pregrowth
section. The pregrowth experienced constant horizontal
displacement as defined in the model and independently
confirmed by ADS analysis. Therefore, any horizon mis-
match between the backthrusts must relate to changes in
fault offset and folding associated with bends in the fault
40° 43° 33°
3
4 processing provide an unprecedented
Depth (km)
5 on this level of detail to create robust in-
6
Initial fault Final fault
tip point tip point
7 eling. The combined quantitative ap-
Data are owned and provided courtesy of CGG, Crawley, UK
Figure 12. Composite structural forward model developed by linking models
for the forelimb and both backthrusts. The forelimb geometry is from Figure 9.
The backlimb geometry is now reproduced by two forward models, one for each
backthrust from the original interpretation. The solid lines represent predicted
horizon geometry, and the dashed lines are the interpretation. Small horizon gaps
occur where the models are automatically spliced, most notably in the growth
section above the backthrusts. Interactions between the overlapping backthrust
displacement fields are not resolved, but horizontal displacement (total shorten-
ing) is conserved across the composite model.
plane. The fact that the planar fault model with constant
offset failed between C and D validates the lower back-
thrust fault bend in the interpretation. Including the
lower backthrust bend proved to be a critical element
in creating a structurally compatible model for the entire
structure. Incorporating the backthrusts in the model
also more accurately reproduces the imaged growth
strata compared with the single-fault model (compare
horizons 1–4, Figures 9 and 12).
Animating the multiple fault model shows the se-
quential fault development as displacement on the en-
tire structure progressively accumulates (Animation 2
is a supplemental file that can be accessed through
the following link: s2.mp4). The composite animation
reconciles the horizontal and vertical displacements be-
tween component models, but it does not include the
effect of interference between the backthrust displace-
ment fields. The animation shows a sequence of de-
formation characterized by continual propagation of
the main fault and progressive backthrust formation
as material moves through the main fault bend (Anima-
tion 2 is a supplemental file that can be accessed
through the following link: s2.mp4). The upper back-
thrust develops first, propagating rapidly relative to the
main fault but over a shorter distance (based on analy-
sis of the restoration). Once the upper backthrust has
moved through the main fault bend, it deactivates. This
deactivation occurs by the time of deposition of growth
horizon 4. The lower backthrust then propagates while
it is located near the base of the main fault bend. The
animation clearly demonstrates that the backthrusts se-
quentially accommodate strain associ-
ated with movement though the main
fault bend.
Conclusion
Recent advances in seismic data
level of detail in structurally complex
settings. An integrated, quantitative ap-
proach to structural analysis capitalizes
terpretations with a maximum amount
of extracted structural information.
Structural uncertainties present in inter-
pretations are estimated by evaluating
the consistency of results from ADS
1 km
analysis, restorations, and forward mod-
proach to structural analysis provides
metrics on displacement, internal strain,
and fault history.
The key findings are as follows:
• ADS analysis independently con-
firms the interpreted basal detach-
ment depth (6.7 km) within 50 m.
The distribution of LPS in the in-
terpretation is consistent with
Interpretation / November 2015 SAA99
 quantitative kinematic models using trishear fault-
propagation folding and backlimb shear. Horizons
close to the final fault tip point show the highest
degree of folding and strain. Deeper horizons with
greater fault offset show less folding and LPS.
ADS analysis also validates the interpreted strati-
graphic transition from uniform displacement in
Downloaded 10/28/15 to 128.111.121.42. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/
the pregrowth section to progressively decreasing
displacements in the growth section.
• The significant LPSs associated with folding imply
that a variety of seismically unresolved reservoir-
scale deformation fabrics are present within parts
of this structure.
• In addition to fault offset observations, structural
restoration of fault offset on horizons with mini-
mal LPS provides a visual method to constrain in-
itial fault tip points for all three faults. Restoring
the section based on those offsets produced via-
ble restorations for horizons below the initial tip
point, whereas those above the initial tip point
showed residual displacements. This constrained
the initial fault tip point to be in the lower pre-
growth on the main fault and in the upper pre-
growth on the backthrusts.
• Constraints from ADS analysis and the structural
restoration were used to create two structural for-
ward models that reproduce the observed fault-
propagation folding using the trishear velocity
field. The first model simplifies the structure to
a single listric fault. The single-fault model shows
high LPS in the backlimb zone of the structure as-
sociated with the main fault bend. This zone spa-
tially overlaps with the backthrust locations in the
interpretation, indicating that they accommodate
the modeled strains and are a critical component
of the kinematic system. The second model in-
corporates these backthrusts, resulting in an im-
provement among the modeled geometry, the in-
terpretation, and the seismic data. Animating the
multiple-fault model shows that the backthrusts
developed sequentially as material was translated
through the main fault bend.
Combining multiple, independent methods provides
a fully quantified and detailed interpretation of a com-
plex structure. The close agreement of the results from
ADS analysis, restoration, and forward modeling pro-
vides a high degree of confidence in the geologic sound-
ness of the structural interpretation. Differences
between displacement, horizon positions, and fault
shape in the interpretation and structural models are
100 m or less. This is likely within the seismic depth
conversion error, suggesting that revisions to the inter-
pretation are unnecessary. Although this level of consis-
tency may not always be possible, the process pre-
sented here can be used to guide the development of
more robustly constrained seismic interpretation solu-
tions and greater kinematic insight.
SAA100 Interpretation / November 2015
Defining the detailed kinematic evolution of this, or
any, structure is fundamental to petroleum systems
analysis. Understanding the progressive development
of trap geometry is fundamental for interpreting the tim-
ing of structural growth relative to the timing of hydro-
carbon charge and seal emplacement. In addition,
confidently locating fault tip locations is necessary
for accurately quantifying risk associated with reservoir
volumes. Finally, the strains inferred from the ADS and
forward modeling methods have implications for reser-
voir quality and compartmentalization.
Acknowledgments
The seismic data used in this study were provided
courtesy of CGG. Comments from J. P. Brandenburg,
A. Mora, and an anonymous reviewer significantly im-
proved the clarity and content of the paper. Initial dis-
cussions with R. Groshong helped to develop many of
the concepts and ideas that are presented in this paper.
A. Hughes thanks the management of Chevron Energy
Technology Company for the opportunity to participate
in this study.
Appendix A
Interactive area-depth-strain analysis
Background theory
Early structural geologists (e.g., Chamberlin, 1910)
recognized that measurements of bed length and bed
area provide estimates of detachment depth. Epard
and Groshong (1993), make a significant advance when
they recognize that plotting horizon excess area as a
function of depth could be used to estimate the detach-
ment depth and structural displacement parallel to the
detachment, provided that all horizons experience the
same displacement (Figure A-1). Area balance in fault-
related folding requires that the area of structural relief
(area A, Figure A-1a) is equal to the displaced area
above the detachment (Chamberlin, 1910) (area S, Fig-
ure A-1a). For each horizon, the displaced area S is a
function of height above the detachment and displace-
ment (Figure A-1b). For pregrowth horizons that have
experienced uniform displacement, the linear relation-
ship between fold area (A) and depth (h) can be used to
calculate the detachment depth and best-fit displace-
ment (dA , Figure A-1b) (Epard and Groshong, 1993).
Furthermore, comparing constant area displacement
(as derived from an area-depth plot, Figure A-1b)
against bed length measurements estimates the extent
to which the bed length had changed during deforma-
tion (Groshong and Epard, 1994). The degree to which
the bed length differs from the original section length
(as calculated using the area-depth displacement, Fig-
ure A-1b) is attributed to layer-parallel strain (Groshong
and Epard, 1994).
 a) b) Area (m2 ) Area-depth-strain analysis in
Area (A) dA = A / h
Regional (h)
Inverse slope:
StructureSolver
7 dA

Regional depth (m)

6 dA/dh = dA Figure A-2 shows a schematic of in-
5 teractive area-depth-strain analysis.
7
4 6
3 S h 4 5 The analyzed structure is a balanced for-
2 3
1 2
ward model of a fault-propagation fold.
1 There is a deep pregrowth sequence
Intercept:
Downloaded 10/28/15 to 128.111.121.42. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

area (A) = area (S) detachment depth (shades of blue, Figure A-2a) with con-
stant displacement, overlain by a shal-
Figure A-1. Background theory for area-depth analysis calculations. (a) Model low growth sequence (shades of green,
of a constant thickness fault-propagation fold from Epard and Groshong (1993). Figure A-2a) with displacement decreas-
Model horizons are numbered 1–7 with the shaded area excess area (A) and dis-
ing linearly upwards. The regional limits
placed area (S) shown in green for horizon 7. Note that the excess area above the
region (dashed green line) is equal to the displaced area at the regional depth (S). defined the horizontal extent of the anal-
(b) Plot of regional depth versus excess area (A). Marker colors and numbers ysis and can be controlled either auto-
correspond to the model horizons in A. The linear best fit is shown with a dashed matically or manually. A reference line
line. The inverse slope gives the area-depth displacement for the model, and the for each horizon joins the points at which
vertical-axis intercept gives the detachment depth.

a) Regional Area-depth graph Regional

limit limit

Area

0 (0, 0.0 %)
Depth
sequence
Growth

–184 (–42, –2.2 %)

ne -fit
–416 (–114, –4.6 %)

st
Be
line
–693 (–298, –5.8 %)

Li
Upper best fit limit wth
–896 (–711, –2.6 %)
Gro

–896 (–1185, 4.1 %)

Pregrowth
sequence

–896 (–720, –2.5 %)

Reference line

–896 (–715, –2.6 %)

–896 (–752, –2.0 %)
Lower best fit limit

–896
Estimated detachment Detachment depth

b)
Section length
Area-depth displacement –896
Undeformed bed length

Deformed bed length

Layer parallel strain

Nominal displacement –720

Figure A-2. Schematic of interactive ADS analysis (compare with Figure 3). The structure is a balanced forward model of a fault-
propagation fold featuring a pregrowth section (blue shades) overlain by growth strata (green shades). The best-fit detachment is
marked by a heavy dashed black line. Displacements are shown to the left of their respective displacement vectors. The values,
listed from left to right, are as follows: area-depth displacement, nominal displacement (in parenthesis), and layer parallel strain (in
parenthesis). Positive displacements indicate extension and negative displacements indicate contraction. The calculation of de-
tachment depth, displacements, and strains are discussed in the text.

Interpretation / November 2015 SAA101

 the horizon intersects the regional limits. The area above
each reference line is calculated for each horizon
(shaded for the representative blue horizon, Figure A-
2a). The area computation automatically intersects each
horizon with any faults that are crossed, and the area
boundary appropriately follows fault traces between cut-
offs. The plotted depth for each horizon is the average
Downloaded 10/28/15 to 128.111.121.42. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/
horizon depth at the regional limits. Area-depth points
for each horizon are plotted directly over the section
(as squares in the horizon color; see Figure A-2a) at
the same vertical scale, with area increasing to the right
from an intercept axis, which represents the zero area. In
this example, the growth horizon areas increase down-
ward until the top of the pregrowth sequence, and
then they decrease linearly, typical of contractional
structures.
Consistent with the area-depth theory of Epard and
Groshong (1993), the area-depth points for the pre-
growth sequence lie on a straight line. A best-fit line
(Figure A-2a) is calculated automatically by least-
squares linear regression through the pregrowth area-
depth points, with depth as the independent variable
and area as the dependent variable. The depth intercept
of the best-fit line with the intercept axis defines the
detachment depth (Figure A-2). The slope of the
best-fit line (area/depth) gives the area-depth displace-
ment of the pregrowth horizons. In the case of contrac-
tional structures such as this one, the displacements are
negative. The area-depth represents the true displace-
ment along the detachment for the entire pregrowth sec-
tion. The slope of a growth line (area/depth) joining the
depth intercept point with an area-depth point in the
growth section defines the area-depth displacement
for a growth horizon (Groshong et al., 2003) (Fig-
ure A-2).
Determining the area-depth displacement allows us
to calculate restored bed lengths without relying on as-
sumptions of bed-length conservation that are com-
monly used in section balancing. By comparing the
restored section length calculated from the area-depth
displacement with measured bed lengths (deformed,
present-day length), we can estimate the layer-parallel
strain (bed-length change) that accumulated during de-
formation (Figure A-2b). First, the length of a horizon in
its initial undeformed state is described as
Undeformed bed length
¼ section length‒area-depth displacement. (A-1)
The section length is the horizontal distance between
the regional limits (Figure A-2b). The deformed bed
length is the length of a given horizon between regional
limits, calculated curvimetrically along the horizon, and
omitting fault gaps (Figure A-2b). Comparing the de-
formed bed length with the undeformed bed length de-
termined using the area-depth displacement gives LPS
for the horizon:
SAA102 Interpretation / November 2015
Layer-parallal strain
¼ ðdeformed bed lenght‒undeformed bed lengthÞ∕
undeformed bed length. (A-2)
In general, deformed bed lengths do not equal the
undeformed bed length because of LPS occurring at
a variety of scales during deformation (Groshong and
Epard, 1994).
The constant bed-length displacement is reported as
the nominal displacement:
Nominal displacement
¼ section length‒deformed bed length. (A-3)
This quantity is designated as “nominal” because bed
length does not generally remain constant during defor-
mation. The difference between the nominal displace-
ment and the area-depth displacement represents the
total change in bed length during deformation (Fig-
ure A-2b). Annotated displacement vectors display the
area-depth displacement for each horizon with the
nominal displacement and LPS shown in parentheses
(Figures 3 and A-2a). The nominal displacement vector
is shown by a dashed line with a small bar (if the area-
depth displacement vector is greater, the nominal dis-
placement vector may not be visible).
References
Allmendinger, R. W., 1998, Inverse and forward numerical
modeling of trishear fault-propagation folds: Tectonics,
17, 640–656, doi: 10.1029/98TC01907.
Allmendinger, R. W., N. Cardozo, and D. Fisher, 2012,
Structural geology algorithms: Vectors and tensors:
Cambridge University Press.
Bilotti, F., and J. H. Shaw, 2005, Deep-water Niger Delta
fold and thrust belt modeled as a critical taper wedge:
The influence of basal fluid pressure on structural
styles: AAPG Bulletin, 89, 1475–1491, doi: 10.1306/
06130505002.
Brandenburg, J. P., F. O. Alpak, J. G. Solum, and S. J.
Naruk, 2012, A kinematic trishear model to predict de-
formation bands in a fault-propagation fold, East Kaibab
Monocline, Utah: AAPG Bulletin, 96,109–132, doi: 10
.1306/05101110160.
Briggs, S. E., R. J. Davies, J. A. Cartwright, and R. Morgan,
2006, Multiple detachment levels and their control on
fold styles in the compressional domain of the deep-
water west Niger Delta: Basin Research, 18, 435–450,
doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2117.2006.00300.x.
Chamberlin, R. T., 1910, The Appalachian fold of central
Pennsylvania: Journal of Geology, 18, 228–251, doi:
10.1086/621722.
 Connors, C. D., D. Deneson, G. Kristiansen, and D. Ang-
stadt, 1998, Compressive anticlines of the mid-outer
slope, central Niger Delta: AAPG Bulletin, 82, 903.
Corredor, F., J. H. Shaw, and F. Bilotti, 2005a, Structural
styles in the deep-water fold and thrust belts of the Ni-
ger Delta: AAPG Bulletin, 89, 753–780, doi: 10.1306/
02170504074.
Downloaded 10/28/15 to 128.111.121.42. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/
Dahlstrom, C. D. A., 1969, Balanced cross sections: Cana-
dian Journal of Earth Sciences, 6, 743–757, doi: 10.1139/
e69-069.
Dahlstrom, C. D. A., 1977, Structural geology in the eastern
margin of the Canadian Rocky Mountains in guidebook,
in E. L. Heisey, D. E. Lawson, E. R. Norwood, P. H.
Wach, and L. A. Hale, eds., 29th Annual Field
Conference guidebook, Wyoming Geological Associa-
tion, 407–440.
Damuth, J. E., 1994, Neogene gravity tectonics and depo-
sitional processes on the deep Niger-Delta continental
margin: Marine and Petroleum Geology, 11, 320–346,
doi: 10.1016/0264-8172(94)90053-1.
Doust, H., and E. Omatsola, 1989, Niger Delta, in J. D. Ed-
wards, and P. A. Santogrossi, eds., Divergent/passive
margin basins: AAPG Memoir 48, 201–238.
Epard, J.-L., and R. H. Groshong Jr., 1993, Excess area
and depth to detachment: AAPG Bulletin, 77, 1291–
1302.
Erslev, E., 1991, Trishear fault-propagation folding: Geology,
19, 617–620, doi: 10.1130/0091-7613(1991)019<0617:
TFPF>2.3.CO;2.
Gonzalez-Mieres, R., and J. Suppe, 2011, Shortening histor-
ies in active detachment folds based on area-of-relief
methods, in K. McClay, J. Shaw, and J. Suppe, eds.,
Thrust fault related folding: AAPG Memoir 94, 39–67.
Groshong, R. H., Jr., and J. L. Epard, 1994, The role of
strain in area-constant detachment folding: Journal of
Structural Geology, 16, 613–618, doi: 10.1016/0191-
8141(94)90113-9.
Groshong, R. H., Jr., J. C. Pashin, B. Chai, and R. D.
Schneeflock, 2003, Predicting reservoir-scale faults
with area balance: Application to growth stratigraphy:
Journal of Structural Geology, 25, 1645–1658, doi: 10
.1016/S0191-8141(03)00002-6.
Hardy, S., and M. Ford, 1997, Numerical modeling of trish-
ear fault propagation folding: Tectonics, 16, 841–854,
doi: 10.1029/97TC01171
Hennings, P. H., J. E. Olson, and L. B. Thompson, 2000,
Combining outcrop data and three-dimensional struc-
tural models to characterize fractured reservoirs: An ex-
ample from Wyoming: AAPG Bulletin, 84, 830–849.
Hughes, A. N., and J. H. Shaw, 2014, Fault displacement-
distance relationships as indicators of contraction fault-
related folding style: AAPG Bulletin, 98, 227–251, doi:
10.1306/05311312006.
Hughes, A. N., and J. H. Shaw, 2015, Insights into the me-
chanics of fault propagation folding styles: Geological
Society of America Bulletin, doi: 10.1130/B31215.1.
Jamison, W. R., 1987, Geometric analysis of fold develop-
ment in overthrust terranes: Journal of Structural Geol-
ogy, 9, 207–219, doi: 10.1016/0191-8141(87)90026-5.
Nunns, A. G., 1991, Structural restoration of seismic and
geologic sections in extensional regimes: AAPG Bulle-
tin, 75, 278–297.
Salvini, F., and F. Storti, 2004, Active-hinge-folding-related
deformation and its role in hydrocarbon exploration
and development — Insights from HCA modeling,
in K. McClay, ed., Thrust tectonics and hydrocarbon
systems: AAPG Memoir 82, 453–472.
Storti, F., and F. Salvini, 2001, The evolution of a model
trap in the central Apennines, Italy: Fracture patterns,
fault reactivation and development of cataclastic rocks
in carbonates at the Narni Anticline: Journal of Petro-
leum Geology, 24, 171–190doi: 10.1111/j.1747-5457
.2001.tb00666.x
Suppe, J., and D. A. Medwedeff, 1990, Geometry and kin-
ematics of fault-propagation folding: Eclogae Geologi-
cae Helvetiae, 83, 409–454.
Watkins, H., R. W. H. Butler, C. E. Bond, and D. Healy,
2015, Influence of structural position on fracture net-
works in the Torridon Group, Achnashallach fold and
thrust belt, NW Scotland: Journal of Structural Geology,
74, 64–80, doi: 10.1016/j.jsg.2015.03.001
Williams, G., and T. Chapman, 1983, Strains developed
in the hanging walls of thrusts due to their slip/
propagation rate: A dislocation model: Journal of Struc-
tural Geology, 5, 563–571, doi: 10.1016/0191-8141(83)
90068-8.
Wu, S., and A. Bally, 2000, Slope tectonics — Compari-
sons and contrasts of structural styles of salt and shale
tectonics of the northern Gulf of Mexico with shale tec-
tonics of offshore Nigeria in Gulf of Guinea, in W. Moh-
riak, and M. Taiwani, eds., Atlantic rifts and continental
margins: AGU Geophysical Monograph, 151–172.
Xiao, H.-B., and J. Suppe, 1992, The origin of rollover:
AAPG Bulletin, 76, 509–529.
Zehnder, A. T., and R. W. Allmendinger, 2000, Velocity field
for the trishear model: Journal of Structural Geology,
22, 1009–1014, doi: 10.1016/S0191-8141(00)00037-7.
Nathan W. Eichelberger received a
B.S. (2007) in geology from Bates Col-
lege and a Ph.D. (2014) in geosciences
from Princeton University. He is a
structural geologist at StructureSolver,
a geological software and consulting
company. His research focuses on
understanding the mechanical and tem-
poral evolution of structural systems
at scales ranging from single faults to entire mountain
belts. His work integrates results from a variety of
methods, including field studies, seismic interpretation,
structural restorations, microstructural analysis, and geo-
chronology.
Interpretation / November 2015 SAA103
 Amanda N. Hughes received a B.S.
(2006) in geology from Washington
and Lee University and a Ph.D.
(2012) in earth and planetary sciences
from Harvard University. She is a
structural geologist for the Chevron
Downloaded 10/28/15 to 128.111.121.42. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/
Energy Technology Company in
Houston, Texas. Her research com-
bines geologic observations, seismic
reflection interpretation, and kinematic and mechanical
modeling approaches to understand the growth of struc-
tures in the context of petroleum exploration and produc-
tion in structurally complex regions.
SAA104 Interpretation / November 2015
Alan Nunns received a B.S. (Hons)
in geology from the University of
Auckland and a Ph.D. (1980) in geo-
logical sciences from the University
of Durham. He is the president of
StructureSolver, a geological soft-
ware and consulting company. He
had worked for 24 years for Chevron
in a variety of research, operations,
and technology management roles. His technical interests
include the development of interactive structural geologic
techniques for use during interpretation.