How do differences in interpreting seismic images affect estimates of geological slip rates?
-
Published:2022-08-12
Issue:8
Volume:13
Page:1281-1290
-
ISSN:1869-9529
-
Container-title:Solid Earth
-
language:en
-
Short-container-title:Solid Earth
Abstract
Abstract. Uncertainties of geological structural geometry constructed based on seismic reflections can stem from data acquisition, processing, analysis, or
interpretation. Uncertainties arising from structural interpretations and subsequent estimates of geological slip have been particularly less
quantified and discussed. To illustrate the implications of interpretation uncertainties for seismic potential and structural evolution, I use an
example of a shear fault-bend fold in the central Himalaya. I apply a simple solution from the kinematic model of shear fault-bend folding to
resolve the geological input slip of given structure and then compare the result with a previous study to show how differences in structural
interpretations could impact dependent conclusions. The findings show that only a little variance in interpretations owing to subjectivity or an
unclear seismic image could yield geological slip rates differing by up to ∼ 10 mm yr−1, resulting in significantly different
scenarios of seismic potential. To reduce unavoidable subjectivity, this study also suggests that the epistemic uncertainty in raw data should be
included in interpretations and conclusions.
Publisher
Copernicus GmbH
Subject
Paleontology,Stratigraphy,Earth-Surface Processes,Geochemistry and Petrology,Geology,Geophysics,Soil Science
Reference50 articles.
1. Alcalde, J., Bond, C. E., Johnson, G., Butler, R. W. H., Cooper, M. A., and Ellis, J. F.:
The importance of structural model availability on seismic interpretation, 97, 161–171, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsg.2017.03.003, 2017. 2. Alcalde, J., Bond, C. E., Johnson, G., Kloppenburg, A., Ferrer, O., Bell, R., and Ayarza, P.:
Fault interpretation in seismic reflection data: an experiment analysing the impact of conceptual model anchoring and vertical exaggeration, Solid Earth, 10, 1651–1662, https://doi.org/10.5194/se-10-1651-2019, 2019. 3. Almeida, R. V., Hubbard, J., Liberty, L., Foster, A., and Sapkota, S. N.:
Seismic imaging of the Main Frontal Thrust in Nepal reveals a shallow décollement and blind thrusting, Earth Planet. Sc. Lett., 494, 216–225, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.epsl.2018.04.045, 2018. 4. Amos, C. B., Burbank, D. W., and Read, S. A. L.:
Along-strike growth of the Ostler fault, New Zealand: Consequences for drainage deflection above active thrusts, Tectonics, 29, TC4021, https://doi.org/10.1029/2009TC002613, 2010. 5. Bird, P.:
Uncertainties in long-term geologic offset rates of faults: General principles illustrated with data from California and other western states, Geosphere, 3, 577–595, https://doi.org/10.1130/GES00127.1, 2007.
Cited by
2 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献
|
|