Professional Documents
Culture Documents
a r t i c l e i n f o
a b s t r a c t
Article history:
Received 18 April 2011
Received in revised form
24 February 2012
Accepted 29 February 2012
Available online 21 March 2012
Reection seismic data is usually displayed with a vertical exaggeration factor in the range 2e6
irrespective of whether it is time or depth domain data. This vertical exaggeration gives certain
advantages to stratigraphic and structural interpretation, and is sometimes a prerequisite to view
long-wavelength structures. However, vertical exaggeration distorts geological structures, affecting
dip, curvature, line length, cross-sectional area, volume and angular relationships. Reection seismic can
be assigned a vertical exaggeration heterogeneity factor based on the extremes of seismic velocities. In
the absence of appreciable poorly-compacted units and bathymetry, and generally on depth domain data,
vertical exaggeration is relatively homogeneous. Analytical solutions are derived to quantify the
distortion of angular relationships, curvature and bed thickness under homogeneous vertical exaggeration. Modelled extensional and compressional geometries give acceptable area balance restorations
using vertical shear under homogeneous vertical exaggeration. These vertically exaggerated restorations
are neither admissible nor viable because the deformed and restored state sections are unrealistic. Given
low heterogeneity of vertical exaggeration, and relatively simple structure that typies many extensional
geometries and some thrust geometries, aspect ratios of 1:1 are not denitively required for section
validation by restoration.
2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords:
Reection seismic
Vertical exaggeration
Validation
Restoration
1. Introduction
39
Fig. 1. Vertical exaggeration (VE) of reection seismic cross sections. a) Sketch of a representative section with typical structural features of a rift basin setting. Cross section is
reproduced with progressively greater VE (aspect ratio), a homogeneous transformation. b) Equivalent section in time domain based on typical seismic velocities. This in itself is
a heterogeneous transformation from the depth domain true section of (a). Vertical units are two-way travel time (TWT) in seconds. Versions of this section with superimposed
homogeneous VE are shown e these represent the most widespread mode of published seismic data (see Fig. 2). Red box highlights an area of low heterogeneity of exaggeration
that is nonetheless affected by lateral velocity gradients at shallower levels. c) Example reection seismic lines (time domain data with low velocity-related VE heterogeneity)
displayed close to true aspect ratio (left) and at more commonly used VE (right).
aspect ratio (e.g. Stone, 1991; Groshong, 2006) however this does
not appear to be popular in the published literature (Stewart, 2011).
Horizontal exaggeration is equivalent to vertical exaggeration
(as dened here) combined with uniform scaling so it is not
40
Fig. 2. Review of VE in published seismic data, after Stewart (2011). 1437 data.
41
Fig. 4. Spatial sampling of reection seismic data and possible predisposition to VE. a) Graph of vertical exaggerations resulting from display of seismic on a grid with equal sample
spacing on vertical and horizontal axes. HI: horizontal sampling interval. VI: vertical sampling interval. b) (i) representation of actual sampling of typical reection seismic data. (ii)
relatively even sampling can give a less stretched appearance of seismic data and may be preferred data display. c) Reection seismic example at (i) seismic sampling mapped on to
an even display grid (ii) a portion of the same line displayed at VE z 1. Seismic data originally appeared in Fig. 2 of Butler and Paton (2010).
2000 HI
v VI
(1)
Where VE (equal spatial sampling on seismic) is vertical exaggeration based on equal spatial sampling in vertical and horizontal
directions, v is seismic velocity (ms1), VI is vertical sampling in
two-way travel time (ms) and HI is horizontal sampling (m). So
display of a reection seismic cross section with an approximately
equal vertical and horizontal spatial sampling has a vertical exaggeration of 2e3 in the case of 12.5 m horizontally sampled data, and
3e6 in the case of data sampled at 25 m horizontal spacing (Fig. 4).
The strength of this effect on practitioners is difcult to quantify but
it is easy to imagine an interpreter preferring the aesthetics of
unstretched seismic displayed with even vertical and horizontal
sampling.
2.4. Vertical exaggeration due to data management and
interpretation issues
The full seismic volume as acquired and processed is not
necessarily available to the interpreter e seismic may be decimated
on loading, for example a survey acquired with HI 12.5 m may be
loaded dropping every second trace, to save computer memory or
increase interpretational efciency, giving a 25 m spacing. The
sampling parameters discussed here apply to the seismic volume
42
may be locally homogeneous but be overlain by velocity heterogeneities and therefore distorted (e.g. Fig. 1).
4. Section restoration procedures
4.1. Section restoration terminology
The idea that interpretations of deformed structures could be
restored to the undeformed state to provide a validation of the
initial interpretation was described by Dahlstrom (1969), and has
been adopted widely (e.g. Hossack, 1979, 1995; Cooper, 1983;
Elliott, 1983; Gibbs, 1983; Woodward et al., 1986; De Paor, 1988;
Mitra and Namson, 1989). The concepts of viability and admissibility were introduced by Elliott (1983) and reviewed by
Marshak and Woodward (1988, p309e310). A deformed-state
section is admissible if it contains realistic structures, i.e. things
that can be directly observed at outcrop. A deformed-state section
is viable if it can be restored to an unstrained state such that line
lengths and/or areas are conserved, line lengths are consistent with
one another, and the unstrained section is admissible. A balanced
section is a deformed-state section that is both viable and admissible. The workow descriptors validation and restoration are
broadly equivalent to balancing and work described in these
terms usually includes explicit reference to balancing (e.g.
Flttmann and James, 1997; Wickham and Moeckel, 1997; Foss
et al., 2008; Durand-Riard et al., 2010). Key restoration methods
are line length, area and volume balance and a range of deformation mechanisms are modelled.
4.2. Section restoration uncertainties
Putting aside issues arising from heterogeneity of vertical
exaggeration, there are a number of signicant sources of uncertainty that impact restorations. Section admissibility is arguably
restricted to some basic principles such as inability of in-situ
sedimentary beds to cross cut each other. Apart from such
geometrical primitives, realism based on outcrop analogy depends
to some extent on an individuals experience. Furthermore, the vast
majority of rocks on Earth do not crop out and it could be argued
that many unrealistic geometries actually exist in the subsurface.
The original denition of viability is also open to challenge.
Penetrative strain (specically layer parallel strain or lateral
compaction) has long been recognised as an issue in the restoration
Table 1
Inuence of homogeneous and heterogeneous vertical exaggeration on structural components and measurements. d is dip in the line of a 2D section at a given point.
Affected by homogeneous VE?
Line length (of straight line L)
Line continuity
Lateral position of piercing points
Fault population truncation
Azimuth
Dip (d)
Dip sign (pos/neg)
Curvature magnitude (k)
N
N
N
N
Y
N
Y
Curvature direction
Cross section area
Bed thickness (of parallel bedded interval thickness T)
N
Y
Y
Volume
tana d tan d
1
VE tana dtan d
VE
0
tan d VE tan d
3=2
sin2 d
k0 k VE cos2 d
2
VE
area0 VE area
v
u 2
uT 1 cos2 d1 VE2
T0 u
u
1=VE VE 2
t
1
tan d cot d
volume0 VE volume
N
N
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
43
Fig. 5. Graphs showing effects of single, homogeneous VE on various structural criteria. Functions are shown in Table 1 and results are discussed in text.
usually difcult to conserve all line lengths and area (Wickham and
Moeckel, 1997; Koyi and Maillot, 2007). Materials that are prone to
ow in 3D such as salt contravene the plane strain assumption of
2D balancing (Rowan, 1993; Hossack, 1995). Removal of vertical
compaction is another element that may introduce uncertainty
(e.g. Bishop et al., 1995; Foss et al., 2008). Finally, there are also
uncertainties associated with major geometrical assumptions such
as depth to detachment, stratigraphic template and position of
unseen cutoffs (Judge and Allmendinger, 2011).
Despite these issues, section restoration is a relatively quick way
of checking the robustness of a structural model before more
substantial investment (e.g. drilling) is made.
44
Fig. 6. Modelled deformation, exaggeration and restoration to investigate the effects of restoring vertically exaggerated sections. Reference frame vertical eld is depth and aspect
ratio V H. Allochthon line lengths (L0 ) and areas (A0 ) are referenced to the initial models on the left hand side. Models run in 2DMove by Midland Valley.
45
46
Rowan, M.G., 1993. A systematic technique for the sequential restoration of salt
structures. Tectonophysics 228, 331e348.
Rowan, M.G., Kligeld, R., 1989. Cross section restoration and balancing as aid to
seismic interpretation in extensional terranes. American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin 73, 955e966.
Sans, M., Vergs, J., Gomis, E., Pars, J.M., Schiattarella, M., Trav, A.,
Calvet, F., Santanach, P., Doulcet, A., 2003. Layer parallel shortening in
salt-detached folds: constraint on cross-section restoration. Tectonophysics 372, 85e104.
Stewart, S.A., 2011. Vertical exaggeration of reection seismic data in geoscience
publications 2006e2010. Marine and Petroleum Geology 28, 959e965.
Stone, D.S., 1991. Analysis of scale exaggeration on seismic proles. American
Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin 75, 1161e1177.
Torres Carbonell, P.J., Olivero, E.B., Dimieri, L.V., 2008. Structure and evolution of
the Fuegian Andes foreland thrust-fold belt, Tierra del Fuego, Argentina:
Paleogeographic implications. Journal of South American Earth Sciences 25,
417e439.
Warren, J.K., 1997. Evaporites, brines and base metals: uids, ow and the evaporite
that was. Australian Journal of Earth Sciences 44, 149e183.
Wickham, J., Moeckel, G., 1997. Restoration of structural cross-sections. Journal of
Structural Geology 19, 975e986.
Woodward, N.B., Gray, D.R., Spears, D.B., 1986. Including strain data in balanced
cross-sections. Journal of Structural Geology 8, 313e324.