Billy J. Andrews , Zoë K. Mildon , Christopher A.L. Jackson , Clare E. Bond
{"title":"Quantifying fault interpretation uncertainties and their impact on fault seal and seismic hazard analysis","authors":"Billy J. Andrews , Zoë K. Mildon , Christopher A.L. Jackson , Clare E. Bond","doi":"10.1016/j.jsg.2024.105158","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Fault-horizon cut-off data extracted from seismic reflection datasets are used to study normal fault geometry, displacement distribution, and growth history. We assess the influence of three seismic interpretation factors (repeatability, measurement obliquity, and fault cut-off type) on fault parameter uncertainty. Two repeat interpretations resulted in mean differences of 5–15% for throw, 11–42% for heave, 9–31% for displacement, and 7–27% for dip across faults. Measurement obliquity, where faults are interpreted using non-perpendicular transects to fault strike, show increasing uncertainty with increasing obliquity. Uncertainty in throw is 14–24% at obliquities >20° and 6–13% where obliquities <20°. Continuous cut-offs, including non-discrete deformation, generally exhibit greater uncertainties compared to discontinuous (discrete) cut-offs. We consider the effect of interpretation factors on fault parameters used in seismic hazard assessment (SHA) and fault seal, using the established Shale Gouge Ratio (SGR). Even modest measurement obliquities and repeatability errors can affect inputs for SHA, causing large differences in throw- or slip-rate and inferred fault length. Measurement obliquity and repeatability have a variable impact on SGR calculations, highlighting the additional importance of sedimentary layer thickness and distribution. Our findings raise questions about the optimum workflow used to interpret faults and how uncertainties in fault interpretation are constrained and reported.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":50035,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Structural Geology","volume":"184 ","pages":"Article 105158"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S019181412400110X/pdfft?md5=b196fca8167bb43bdc9add543af2c730&pid=1-s2.0-S019181412400110X-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Structural Geology","FirstCategoryId":"89","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S019181412400110X","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"地球科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"GEOSCIENCES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Fault-horizon cut-off data extracted from seismic reflection datasets are used to study normal fault geometry, displacement distribution, and growth history. We assess the influence of three seismic interpretation factors (repeatability, measurement obliquity, and fault cut-off type) on fault parameter uncertainty. Two repeat interpretations resulted in mean differences of 5–15% for throw, 11–42% for heave, 9–31% for displacement, and 7–27% for dip across faults. Measurement obliquity, where faults are interpreted using non-perpendicular transects to fault strike, show increasing uncertainty with increasing obliquity. Uncertainty in throw is 14–24% at obliquities >20° and 6–13% where obliquities <20°. Continuous cut-offs, including non-discrete deformation, generally exhibit greater uncertainties compared to discontinuous (discrete) cut-offs. We consider the effect of interpretation factors on fault parameters used in seismic hazard assessment (SHA) and fault seal, using the established Shale Gouge Ratio (SGR). Even modest measurement obliquities and repeatability errors can affect inputs for SHA, causing large differences in throw- or slip-rate and inferred fault length. Measurement obliquity and repeatability have a variable impact on SGR calculations, highlighting the additional importance of sedimentary layer thickness and distribution. Our findings raise questions about the optimum workflow used to interpret faults and how uncertainties in fault interpretation are constrained and reported.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Structural Geology publishes process-oriented investigations about structural geology using appropriate combinations of analog and digital field data, seismic reflection data, satellite-derived data, geometric analysis, kinematic analysis, laboratory experiments, computer visualizations, and analogue or numerical modelling on all scales. Contributions are encouraged to draw perspectives from rheology, rock mechanics, geophysics,metamorphism, sedimentology, petroleum geology, economic geology, geodynamics, planetary geology, tectonics and neotectonics to provide a more powerful understanding of deformation processes and systems. Given the visual nature of the discipline, supplementary materials that portray the data and analysis in 3-D or quasi 3-D manners, including the use of videos, and/or graphical abstracts can significantly strengthen the impact of contributions.