Seismic Interpretation

1
Structural
Interpretation
Methods
2
Shaw, Connors, and Suppe
1A-1: Defining folds
Dip domains are separated by axial surfaces; imaginary planes which, when viewed in two dimensions,
form axial traces. Anticlinal axial surfaces occupy concave-downward fold hinges; synclinal axial surfaces
occupy concave-upward fold hinges.
Basic concepts
anticlinal axial surfaces
Folds are bends or flexures of layered rock that form in response to motion along faults,
diapirism, compaction, and regional subsidence or uplift. Folds are expressed in seismic
reflection profiles as one or more regions of dipping reflections (dip domains) that correspond to inclined stratigraphic contacts.
axial trace
Folds come in three basic types:

monoclines
anticlines
synclines
angular hinge
multiple angular hinges
curved hinge
synclinal axial surfaces
Folds are composed of one or more dip domains, and may have angular or curved fold
shapes:
anticlines
fold limbs
crest
single hinge
multiple angular hinges
curved hinge
Axial surfaces often occur in pairs that bound fold limbs, which are also called kink bands:
single hinge
multiple hinges
two sets of paired

axial surfaces
curved hinge
paired
axial surfaces
synclines
single hinge
multiple hinges
curved hinge
kink band
kink bands
3
Part 1: Structural Interpretation Methods
Seismic Interpretation of Contractional Fault-Related Folds
Folds in seismic sections
Monocline,
San Joaquin
Valley,
California,
U.S.A.
Single Hinge Anticline, Niger Delta, Nigeria
Multiple Hinge Anticline, Permian Basin, Texas, U.S.A.
Syncline,
Santa Barbara
Channel,
California,
U.S.A.
4
Folds and bedding thickness

Folds are classified based on whether or not the thickness of stratigraphic layers changes in dip domains or across axial
surfaces.
Parallel folds preserve layer thickness, and are common in strata that deformed predominantly by flexural slip (see inset
at right). Axial surfaces bisect inter-limb angles in parallel folds.
Parallel fold model
Parallel fold, synclinal axial surface
Parallel folds commonly form by a deformation

mechanism called flexural slip, where folding is
accommodated by motions on minor faults that
occur along some mechanical layering usually
bedding. Flexural-slip surfaces, which can be
observed in core or outcrop, may vary in spacing
from a few millimeters to several tens of meters in
spacing.
slip surfaces
Layer thickness is conserved: Bed thickness T1 equals bed thickness T2.

Bisecting axial surfaces: Interlimb angle 1 equals interlimb angle 2.
Various types of folds exhibit non-parallel behavior, where the thickness of stratigraphic layers changes gradually in dip domains or
abruptly across axial surfaces. These thickness changes may be caused
by various deformation mechanisms, including ductile flow within
incompetent beds. Alternatively, thickness changes may be depositional in origin. Axial surfaces do not bisect interlimb angles in non-parallel folds. Rather, axial surface orientations are governed by the magnitude of the change in bed thickness.
Non-Parallel fold, anticlinal axial surface
The amount of offset on flexural-slip

faults increases as
the fold tightens
(note slip increase
from models 1 to
2), and is a function of the spacing
of slip surfaces.
Non-parallel fold model

Slip changes
instantaneously
across axial surfaces in angular
folds (models 1, 2);
whereas, slip
increases along
bedding surfaces
through the hinge
in curved-hinge
folds (model 3).
5
Shortcomings in seismic images of folds
Locating axial surfaces in seismic sections
Folds can be distorted or only partially imaged in seismic sections.

Two common shortcomings are:
Overlapping reflections in non-migrated or under-migrated sections;
and
poor imaging of steeply dipping fold limbs.
Migration moves dipping reflections upward and laterally to properly image the fold geometry,
but reflections on non-migrated or under-migrated sections do not accurately represent fold
shape. However, axial surfaces can be inferred on these sections by mapping the truncations of
horizontal reflections.
Model
Balanced model
Stacked section (synthetic)

Step 1: Pinpoint truncations of horizontal
reflections as they enter the poorly imaged
zone. Note that diffractions, dipping toward
the fold, may emanate from these truncations.
Synthetic seismic
reflection
truncations
Overlapping reflections occur in synclines (1) on this stacked section;

similar patterns persist in under-migrated sections. The steep limb is not
imaged and diffractions are present (2).
diffractions
Stacked
section
Migrated section (synthetic)
Stacked section (synthetic)

Step 2: Fit an axial surface that best matches
the aligned truncations. Note that the interpreted axial surface matches closely with
the axial surface defined in the migrated section (left).
Proper migration removes overlapping reflections and collapses

diffractions, but the steep limb remains un-imaged.
Migrated
section
axial surface
6
Interpreting folds in poorly imaged zones
B: Method for interpreting parallel folds in poorly imaged zones
Poorly imaged zones on folds are commonly caused by, and interpreted as, faults or
steep limbs. Both solutions are often permissible and should be evaluated. Here, we
describe a method of interpreting parallel folds in poorly imaged zones.
Step 1: Pinpoint truncations

of reflections as they enter
the poorly imaged zone.
A: Is the poorly imaged zone a fault or steep fold limb?

fault
Step 2: Fit parallel axial surStep 3: Define the dip of beds

faces that best match the
in the kink band by making 2
aligned truncations. Measure equal to 1.
the average dip outside of the
fold limb and measure 1.
water-bottom
multiples
fold
reflection
truncations
2-D, post-stack time migration displayed in depth

Data courtesy of Texaco, Inc.
D: Confirmation of fold geometry with dipmeter log and 3-D seismic image
C: Interpretation using the parallel fold method
3-D, post-stack time migration displayed in depth

In this example, 3-D

seismic data and a dipmeter log confirm the
presence of steeply dipping beds in the poorly
imaged zone. The primary test of the fold
interpretation, however,
is whether or not the
horizons correlate
properly across the
poorly imaged zone. If
they do, a parallel fold
interpretation is permissible. If they do not,
a non-parallel fold or
fault likely occupies the
poorly imaged zone.
7
1A-2: Recognizing thrust and reverse faults

Faults are identified in seismic reflection profiles through:
fault cutoffs terminations of reflections or abrupt changes of reflection
attributes (e.g., amplitude, polarity) at fault surfaces;
Recognizing and interpreting faults in seismic section

fault cutoffs
inferred fault
position
terminations of fold limbs or kink bands; and
cutoff
direct fault-plane reflections, produced by changes in velocity and density across

or within fault zones.
cutoff
Cutoffs and fault plane reflections (criteria 1 and 3) directly constrain fault positions. Thrust
faults and their cutoffs, however, are generally difficult to image and identify, and thus the recognition of kink-band terminations (criterion 2) is a vital component of interpreting these faults. In
this section, we describe how these criteria can be used together to identify and interpret thrust
and reverse faults in seismic sections.
Fault cutoffs and kink-band terminations

balanced model
Incipient fault with markers along
fault surface.
Abrupt terminations (cutoffs)

and duplications of prominent
reflections constrain the position of a gently dipping thrust
fault. (2-D seismic data, Permian
basin, Texas, U.S.A.)
kink-band terminations
Fault with offset markers and cutoffs.

Note that hanging wall kink bands terminate downward into the fault surface.
hanging wall
cutoffs
Thrust faults and bed-parallel detachments can be identified by the abrupt, downward terminations of kink bands. Terminations are generally marked by regions of dipping reflections above
horizontal or more gently dipping reflections, and may contain fault cutoffs. Dipping reflections
in kink bands represent strata folded in the hanging wall of a thrust/reverse fault or detachment;
whereas, horizontal or more gently dipping reflections represent footwall strata below the fault
or detachment. Thus faults and/or detachments should be interpreted at the transition between
these two dip domains.
footwall cutoffs
in outcrop
Fault cutoffs in outcrop, Mississippian Joana limestone, Nevada, U.S.A.
inferred
detachment
in synthetic seismic
Seismic forward model showing fault
cutoffs (1) and downward terminating
kink-bands (2).
fault-plane
reflection
inferred fault
fault
Downward terminating kink band (2) defines

the position of a gently dipping thrust. (3-D
seismic data, Permian basin, Texas, U.S.A.).
Data courtesy of Mabone, Ltd.
Downward terminating kink band (2) and

fault-plane reflection (3) define the position
of a thrust fault that shallows to an upper
detachment. (3-D seismic data/Niger Delta).
8
Interpreting thrust ramps on seismic sections

Combinations of the three fault recognition
criteria are employed to interpret thrust
faults on the seismic section presented
here.
Seismic Example: Peruvian Andes
This section images structures that involve

two large thrust faults, which can be interpreted using the fault recognition criteria.
The top panel is an uninterpreted section
across a fold and thrust belt in the Andean
foothills, Ucayali basin, Peru. Faults in the
lower section are interpreted using:
Cutoffs (1), kink-band terminations (2), and
fault-plane reflections (3). Note how a
series of cutoffs and kink-band terminations can corroborate, and be used to
extrapolate beyond, the fault-plane reflections. (2-D seismic data, reprinted from
Shaw et al., 1999, and published courtesy
of Perupetro).
dipping over
horizontal reflections
dipping over
horizontal reflections
interpreted faults
VE of 1:1
9
Recognizing detachments
Seismic Example: Sichuan basin, China
Detachments are faults that run along bedding or other stratigraphic horizons, and thus
generally are horizontal or dip at low angles. In fold and thrust belts, detachments are
commonly referred to as decollements. Detachments are generally not imaged directly
on seismic sections, but rather are interpreted at the base and/or top of thrust ramps.
Basal detachments can be located in seismic sections by defining the downward terminations of kink bands, as described on the preceding pages.
These two seismic sections have prominent detachments. In the

section at right, the detachment is located at the base of a singlethrust thrust ramp. The fold in the hanging wall of the thrust is
produced by slip across the fault bend that is formed at the connection of the thrust ramp and detachment. This class of faultbend fold is described in section 1B-1. In the section below, a
regional detachment forms the base of several thrust ramps.
ramp
detachment
Seismic Example: Nankai Trough, Japan
ramp
detachment
10
1A-3: Recognizing growth strata

Growth or syntectonic strata are stratigraphic intervals that were deposited during deformation. The ages of growth strata therefore define the timing of deformations. In contractional fault-related folds, growth strata typically thin across fold limbs toward structural
highs. The geometries of growth structures are controlled primarily by the folding mechanism and the relative rates of sedimentation and uplift. Thus, growth fold patterns imaged
in seismic data are often considered diagnostic of folding mechanism and sediment-touplift ratio. In this section, we describe common patterns of growth strata in fault-related
folds that are imaged in seismic reflection data.
Growth strata in seismic section:

Uplift exceeds sedimentation
Growth strata in seismic section:

Sedimentation exceeds uplift
onlapping
growth strata
onlapping
growth strata
pre-growth strata
growth strata
pre-growth strata
In cases where the sedimentation rate exceeds the uplift rate, growth strata are typically characterized as sequences, bounded by two or more seismic reflections, that thin toward the
structural high. Growth strata are generally folded in one or more limbs of the structure. In this
seismic section, growth strata thin onto the fold crest, with the lowermost growth units exhibiting the greatest thickness changes. (2-D seismic data, reprinted from Shaw et al., 1997).
In cases where the uplift rate exceeds the sedimentation rate, growth strata typically
thin toward, and onlap, the structural high. Growth strata are generally not present
above the fold crest, but are folded in one or more limbs of the structure. In this seismic section, growth strata onlap the backlimb and forelimb of a fault-related fold. The
growth strata are overlain by post-tectonic strata, which are described later in this section. (This structure is interpreted more completely in sections 1B-1 and 1B-4).
11
Growth strata as records of fold kinematics

Two folding mechanisms kink-band migration and limb rotation are commonly ascribed to contractional fault-related folds. These folding mechanisms typically yield distinctive patterns of
deformed growth strata above fold limbs. Thus, seismic images of growth folds can be used to identify the folding mechanisms, which in turn can dictate the kinematic theory (e.g., fault-bend folding or detachment folding) that is most appropriate to guide the structural interpretation of the seismic data.
Folding by kink-band migration

pre-growth strata only
Folding by progressive limb rotation

sedimentation > uplift
sedimentation < uplift
pre-growth strata only
sedimentation > uplift
sedimentation < uplift
growth
strata
growth
strata
growth triangle
inactive axial surface

fold scarps
active axial surface
growth axial surface
fanning of limb dips

growth axial surface
onlaps
pre-growth strata
pre-growth strata
In fault-related folds that develop purely by kink-band migration, fold limbs widen through time
while maintaining a fixed dip (Suppe et al., 1992), as illustrated in the sequential model involving pre-growth strata only (above left). Material is incorporated into the fold limb by passing
through an active axial surface, which at depth is generally pinned to a bend or tip of a fault
(Suppe, 1983; Suppe and Medwedeff, 1990). The fold limb in growth strata is bounded by the
active axial surface and the growth axial surface, an inactive axial surface that defines the locus
of particles originally deposited along the active axial surface. In these sequential models, the
synclinal axial surface is active, and the anticlinal axial surface is inactive.
In the case where sedimentation rate exceeds uplift rate (above center), strata are folded
through the synclinal axis and incorporated into the widening fold limb. The dip of folded
growth strata is equal to dip of the fold limb in pre-growth strata. The width of the dip panel
for each growth horizon corresponds to the amount of fold growth that occurred subsequent
to the deposition of that marker. As a result, younger horizons have narrower fold limbs than
do older horizons, forming narrowing upward fold limbs or kink bands in growth strata (growth
triangles). In the case where uplift rate exceeds sedimentation rate (above right), each increment of folding produces a discrete fold scarp located where the active axial surface projects
to the Earths surface (Shaw et al., 2004). Subsequent deposits onlap the fold scarp, producing
stratigraphic pinchouts above the fold limb. Fold scarps and stratigraphic pinch-outs are displaced laterally and folded as they are incorporated into widening limbs.
onlaps
In fault-related folds that develop purely by limb rotation with fixed hinges (i.e., inactive axial
surfaces), the dip of the fold limb increases with each increment of folding as illustrated in the
sequential model involving pre-growth strata only (left). In the case where sedimentation rate
exceeds uplift rate (center), strata are progressively rotated with each increment of folding.
Thus, older growth horizons dip more steeply than do younger horizons, yielding a pronounced fanning of limb dips in growth strata. Fold limb width, however, remains constant. In
the case where uplift rate exceeds sedimentation rate, growth strata also exhibit a fanning of
limb dips. However, growth strata typically onlap the fold limb.
Contractional fault-related folding theories that exclusively invoke limb rotation include certain classes of detachment folds (Dahlstrom, 1990; Hardy and Poblet, 1994).
Contractional fault-related folding theories that exclusively invoke kink-band migration include
fault-bend folding (Suppe, 1983), constant-thickness and fixed axis fault-propagation folding
(Suppe and Medwedeff, 1983), and basement-involved (triple junction) folding (Narr and Suppe,
1994).
12
Growth structures in seismic data
Folding by progressive limb rotation
Growth structures imaged in seismic sections commonly exhibit patterns that are similar to
the kink-band migration or limb-rotation models that were described on the previous page. In
other cases, folds may develop by a combination of kink-band migration and limb rotation,
resulting in hybrid patterns of growth structure. This section presents three seismic profiles
as examples of kink-band migration, limb rotation, and hybrid growth structures.
Seismic Example: offshore Angola

Folding by kink-band migration

Seismic Example: Santa Barbara Channel, California, U.S.A.
growth triangle
salt mound
limb rotation model
growth
strata
detachment
kink-band migration model

growth
strata
Folding by both kink-band migration and limb rotation

Seismic Example: San Joaquin basin, California, U.S.A.
(top) The seismic section above shows a narrowing upward fold limb, or growth triangle,
where bed dips within the fold limb generally do not shallow upward, consistent with folding
by kink-band migration. Dipmeter data in the wells corroborates the reflector dips. (upper
right) In this section, a fanning and upward shallowing of limb dips within growth strata are
consistent with folding by progressive limb rotation. The core of the anticline is filled with
salt, which presumably thickened during deformation, leading to progressive rotation of the
overlying fold limbs. (lower right) The growth structure in this section contains both a growth
triangle and a fanning of limb dips, suggesting folding by a combination of kink-band migration and limb rotation mechanisms. Kinematic theories that employ hybrid folding mechanisms include shear fault-bend folds (Suppe et al., 2004; see section 1A-4), certain classes of
detachment folds (Dahlstrom, 1990; Hardy and Poblet, 1994; see section 1B-3), and trishear
fault-propagation folds (Erslev, 1991; Hardy and Ford, 1997; Allmendinger, 1998; see section
1B-2).
hybrid model
growth
strata
growth triangle
13
Distinguishing drape from growth strata

Sedimentary drape sequences are stratigraphic intervals that were deposited above a structure after deformation ceased, yet they are warped due to primary sedimentary dip and/or compaction.
Drape sequences exhibit a wide range of patterns depending on the sedimentary environment and facies. In some cases, drape sequences have patterns that are similar to those of growth strata
deformed by limb rotation. In this section, we illustrate the potential similarity of drape and growth patterns, and show an example of a drape sequence in a seismic section.
Drape folding
Kinematic models
Drape sequence
Seismic Example: offshore California Borderlands, U.S.A.

axial surfaces
dips away from crest
drape
Growth fold
axial surfaces
dips toward crest
growth
strata
The top model shows a post-tectonic drape sequence above a rigid basement
high. The drape sequence thins toward the crest of the structure, with
younger strata having less relief than older units. The lower model shows
growth strata above a fold developed by progressive limb rotation. The two
stratigraphic patterns are similar, and in some cases difficult to distinguish.
Incorrect interpretations of drape and growth sequences can lead to flawed
estimates of structural timing and kinematics. Thus, care should be taken in
trying to distinguish between drape and growth sequences.
One common difference between drape and growth sequences is the orientation of axial surfaces. Axial surfaces in drape sequences often are vertical
or dip away from the structural crest, reflecting a state of tension and due, in
some cases, to compaction (Laubach et al., 2000). In contrast, axial surfaces
in contractional folds generally dip toward the structural crest, reflecting a
state of compression. Thus, careful interpretation of axial surfaces, along
with consideration of regional tectonic history, can, in some cases, help to
distinguish between drape and growth sequences.
drape
basement
This seismic section images a siliciclastic drape sequence that onlaps

and overlies a ridge of metamorphic basement rocks.
14
1B-1: Fault-bend folds

Basic concept
Synclinal fault-bend folds
Fault-bend folds form as hanging wall-rocks move over bends in an underlying fault. This section describes the geometry and kinematics of fault-bend folding after Suppe (1983) and introduces basic techniques for interpreting these structures in seismic data.
Synclinal fault-bend folds form at concave-upward fault bends. Synclinal axial surfaces are
pinned to the fault bend and are generally active; whereas anticlinal axial surfaces are inactive
and move with the hanging wall block. Figures below show a kinematic model, a field example,
and a seismic example of synclinal fault-bend folds.
To describe the basic concept of fault-bend folding, we will consider the hypothetical case of a
fault in cross section with one bend joining upper and lower segments. Rigid-block translation
of the hanging wall parallel to the upper fault segment produces a void between the fault
blocks; whereas, translation of the hanging wall parallel to the lower fault segment produces an
overlap. Both of these cases are unreasonable.
Field Example
axial surface
Kinematic Model
Rigid-Block
Translation
fault
Seismic Example: Argentina

axial surface
In contrast, folding of the hanging wall block through the development of a kink band accommodates fault slip without generating an unreasonable overlap or void. This fault-bend folding
(Suppe, 1983) is localized along an active axial surface, which is fixed with respect to the fault
bend. After strata are folded at the active axial surface, they are translated above the upper
fault segment. The inactive axial surface marks the locus of particles that were located along
the active axial surface at the initiation of fault slip. The inactive axial surface moves away from
the active axial surface with progressive fault slip, and thus the width of the intervening kink
band is proportional to the amount of fault slip.
Fault-Bend
Folding
fault
15
Anticlinal fault-bend folds
Seismic Example: Niger Delta
Anticlinal fault-bend folds form at concave-downward fault bends. Anticlinal axial surfaces
are pinned to the fault bend and are generally active; whereas, synclinal axial surfaces are
inactive and move with the hanging wall block. Figures below show a kinematic model, a
field example, and seismic examples of anticlinal fault-bend folds.
axial surface
Kinematic Model
fault
Seismic Example: Permian basin, U.S.A.

Field Example
axial surface
axial surface
fault
fault
16
Quantitative fault-bend folding

Based on assumptions of conservation of bed length and thickness during folding, the shape of a fault-bend fold is related to
the shape of the fault by:
Where is the hanging wall cutoff angle before the fault bend;
is the change in fault dip; is the hanging wall cutoff after the
fault bend, and; is one half of the interlimb angle, such that the
axial surfaces bisect the interlimb angles and bed thicknesses
are preserved. If two of these values are known, the remaining
two values can be determined.
The fault-bend fold relations are displayed in the graph below.
The left side of the graph describes anticlinal fault-bend folds,
where the fold is concave toward the fault; the right side of the
graph describes synclinal fault-bend folds, where the fold is convex toward the fault.
When interpreting seismic sections, typically the interlimb angle

() can be observed (see section 1A-2) and one of the hanging
wall cutoff angles ( or ) can be specified. Using the graph, the
change in fault dip () and the remaining cutoff angle can be
determined.
For anticlinal fault-bend folds there are two fold solutions for
each and value; first mode solutions produce open folds that
have been shown to effectively describe many observed fold
geometries; whereas, second mode solutions are geometrically
valid but have not been shown to effectively describe natural
fold shapes.
17
In cases where the initial cut-off angle () equals zero, then R

equals one (R=1). When the initial cut-off angle () does not equal
The magnitude of fault slip can change across fault bends, as slip zero, R can be determined if any two of the four geometric paramis consumed or produced by fault-bend folding. In cases where eters (, , , ) are specified using fault-bend fold theory (Suppe,
the initial cutoff angle is not equal to zero ( 0), anticlinal fault- 1983). The graph below plots R as a function of initial cut-off angle
bend folds consume fault slip and synclinal fault-bend folds pro- (), interlimb angle (), and change in fault dip (), and is of the
duce fault slip. The change in fault slip is described by the same format used to describe fault-bend fold geometry.
parameter R, which is the ratio of slip magnitude beyond (S1)
R varies greatly as a function of the tightness of the fold, which
and before (S0) the fault bend.
is reflected in part by the interlimb angle (). Tight (perhaps with
Fault slip and fault-bend folds
steep limbs) anticlinal folds generally consume larger amounts

of slip (hence they have lower R values) than do gentle anticlinal
folds. Tight synclinal folds generally produce larger amounts of
slip (hence they have higher R values) than do gentle anticlinal
folds.
In both synclinal and anticlinal fault-bend folds with a single fault
bend, the width of the fold limb measured along the fault equals
the slip (S1).
18
Seismic interpretation of a synclinal fault-bend fold
2. Synclinal fault-bend fold graph
This section describes the interpretation of a synclinal fault-bend fold imaged in seismic reflection data. The lower portion of the fault and the syncline are well imaged, and fault-bend folding theory is used to predict the orientation of the upper portion of the fault.
In Figure 1, fault-plane reflections define the position of a thrust ramp located
beneath a syncline. Based on the imaged fold shape and fault ramp, the initial cutoff angle () and interlimb angle () can be measured as:
= 15; = 82
Using the synclinal fault bend fold graph (Figure 2), and are used to determine
the change in fault dip () and the hanging wall cutoff after the fault bend ():
= 15; = 14
and values are used to model the structure in Figure 3. Note that the predicted
upper fault segment agrees closely with the fault position as constrained by reflection terminations and potential fault-plane reflections.
Synclinal fault-bend fold, Argentina

1. Observations/Initial Interpretation
3. Prediction
19
Seismic interpretation of an anticlinal fault-bend fold
2. Anticlinal fault-bend fold graph
This section describes the interpretation of an anticlinal fault-bend fold imaged in seismic
reflection data.
In Figure 1, fault-plane reflections and reflection truncations define the position of a thrust
ramp located beneath an anticline. Based on the imaged fold shape and fault ramp, the initial
cut-off angle () and interlimb angle () can be defined as:
= 24; = 80
Using the anticlinal fault bend fold graph (Figure 2), and are used to determine the change
in fault dip () and the hanging wall cutoff after the fault bend ():
= 16; = 28
and values are used to model the structure in Figure 3. Note that the predicted upper fault
segment agrees closely with the fault position as constrained by reflection terminations and
the downward termination of the forelimb.
In this example, slip below the fault bend (S0) is also interpreted based on offset reflections.
Based on the slip ratio R predicted for this fault-bend fold (obtained using the graph presented in the previous section), the slip above the fault bend (S1) is calculated as follows:
R = (S0/S1) = 0.87; given S0 = 1.7 km, then S1 = 1.5 km
Anticlinal fault-bend fold, Niger Delta

1. Observations / Initial Interpretation
3. Prediction
20
Composite fault-bend folds: Ramp anticlines

The most common representation of a fault-bend fold involves deformation above a thrust ramp connecting upper and lower detachments, often referred to as a ramp anticline. In fact, this structure
consists of two fault-bend folds one related to each fault bend and thus is part of a class of composite fault-bend folds. This section describes the kinematic evolution of a simple ramp anticline after Suppe (1983), the geometry of which is governed by the quantitative fault-bend folding theories described in the preceding pages.
Kinematic development of a composite fault-bend fold
Seismic Example: Pitas Point, Santa Barbara Channel, California, U.S.A.

Uninterpreted section
0: An incipient thrust fault and axial surfaces in undeformed strata.
1: Fault slip causes folding of the hanging

wall block along active axial surfaces A
and B that are pinned to the two fault
bends. Inactive axial surfaces A and B
form at fault bends and are passively
translated away from active axial surfaces
by slip. Kink-band width A-A or B-B measured along bedding equals slip on the
underlying fault segment. The difference
in kink-band width between back and
front limbs reflects slip consumed in folding.
2: Progressive fault slip widens both kink
bands. Models 1 and 2 are in the crestal
uplift stage because the fold crest elevates
with increasing fault slip.
Interpreted section
3: When the axial surface A reaches the

upper fault bend, material from the back
limb is refolded onto the crest and the
front limb kink-band B-B is translated
along the upper detachment. In model 3,
A and A are active axial surfaces; B and
B are inactive axial surfaces. Model 3 is in
the crestal broadening stage because the
fold crest widens without producing additional structural relief with increasing
fault slip. In the crestal broadening stage,
slip exceeds the width of the fold limbs,
and is equal to the distance between axial
surfaces A-A measured along the fault.
21
Multi-bend fault-bend folds

In addition to simple ramp anticlines, composite structures include multi-bend fault bend folds (Medwedeff and Suppe, 1997), which contain two or more bends of similar concavity or convexity.
Initially, slip across each bend produces a distinct kink band; however, with progressive fault slip, kink bands merge and interact. These interactions can be highly complex, spawning many new axial
surfaces and dip domains. Thus, multi-bend fault-bend folds are generally characterized by the presence of multiple dip domains in backlimbs and forelimbs. Figures below show kinematic models
of multibend fault-bend folds and a seismic example.
Kinematic development of multi-bend fault-bend folds

Convex upward (anticlinal) bends
Concave upward (synclinal) bends

Multi-bend fault
bends
fault
Interpreted section
refolded
refolded
axial surface
axial surface
0: Incipient fault with two convex upward bends.

1: Slip yields two kink bands associated with the
two fault bends. 2: Kink bands widen with progressive slip. 3: Portions of kink bands are refolded, yielding a steeply dipping fold panel.
0: Incipient fault with two concave upward bends.

1: Slip yields two kink bands associated with the
two fault bends. 2: Kink bands widen with progressive slip. 3: A portion of the lower kink band is
refolded as it moves onto the upper fault ramp.
fault
22
Modeling curved fold hinges

Folds generally exhibit some curvature in their hinges. Most fault-related fold analysis techniques approximate these curved hinge zones as perfectly angular folds or as multi-bend folds
composed of two or more planar hinge segments (Medwedeff and Suppe, 1997). In many cases, these approximations adequately describe large folds, with small zones of hinge curvature
separating long, planar fold limbs of the scale typically imaged in seismic data. Moreover, these approximations are useful because they allow for rigorous area and line length balancing.
In some cases, however, it may be necessary to more accurately describe curved hinge zones. Here we introduce a curved-hinge fault-bend fold model after Suppe et al. (1997), which obeys
fault-bend folding relations but imparts fault curvature on the fold shape using the concept of entry and exit axial surfaces. Other techniques of modeling curved fold hinges (e.g., trishear
folding Erslev, 1991) are described in later sections.
Seismic Example: Sichuan basin, China

Angular Hinge
Multibend Hinge
incipient axial surface
active axial surface

Uninterpreted section
Curved Hinge
incipient axial surface
active axial surfaces

inactive axial surfaces
incipient entry axial surface

incipient exit axial surface
entry active axial surface

exit active axial surface
Interpreted section
Sequential models of a syncli- Sequential models of a multi- Sequential models of a curved hinge synnal fault-bend fold with an bend synclinal fault-bend fold clinal fault-bend fold. 0: Two incipient acangular hinge.
with two fault ramp segments. tive axial surfaces bound the zone of curvature on the fault. 1: Slip causes folding
of the hanging wall rocks. Folding begins
as rocks pass through the entry active
axial surface (A), and ceases as rocks
pass through the exit active axial surface
(B). 2: Progressive slip widens the kink
band, as inactive axial surfaces (A and
B) are passively translated up the fault
ramp.
23
Growth fault-bend folds high sedimentation rates
Seismic Example: Santa Barbara Channel, California, U.S.A.
Fault-bend folds develop by kink-band migration, where fold limbs maintain a constant dip but generally widen as fault slip increases. When sedimentation rate exceeds uplift rate, folds that develop by kink-band migration have syntectonic (growth) strata that form narrowing upward dip
domains, or growth triangles, above fold limbs (see section 1A-3). Below, we use kinematic models
to describe how these growth structures develop in a composite fault-bend fold, and show examples of growth structures in seismic sections.
Active synclinal axial surface backlimb FBF
Fault-bend fold with growth strata

growth
pre-growth
forelimb
crestal uplift stage
Seismic Example: Los Angeles basin, California, U.S.A.

Active anticlinal axial surface forelimb FBF
crestal broadening stage
Sequential model of a growth fault-bend fold (Suppe et al., 1992; Shaw et al., 1996) with sedimentation rate > uplift rate. Model 1 consists of a composite fault-bend fold developed above a ramp
between detachments. The fold is in the crestal uplift stage of growth (Shaw et al., 1994b), as fault
slip is less than ramp width. In Model 2, additional slip widens the kink bands, which narrow
upward in the growth section (see section 1A-4). In Model 3, fault slip is greater than ramp width.
Thus, strata are refolded from the back limb (A-A) onto the crest of the structure, which widens
with fault slip (crestal broadening stage, Shaw et al., 1994b). Growth strata are also folded above
the crest, as they pass through active axial surface A. Forelimb axial surfaces (B-B) are released
from the fault bend and passively translated above the upper detachment, and thus do not deform
young growth strata.
24
Growth Fault-Bend Folds low sedimentation rates

In cases where sedimentation rate is less than or equal to the uplift rate, fault-bend folds develop patterns in growth strata that are distinct from growth triangles (see section 1A-3). In limbs with
active synclinal axial surfaces, growth strata are folded concordantly with the underlying kink band; whereas, in limbs with inactive synclinal axial surfaces growth strata simply onlap kink bands.
Below we describe how these growth patterns are expressed in a composite fault-bend fold after Medwedeff (1989) and Suppe et al. (1992).
Fault-bend fold with growth strata
growth
pre-growth
forelimb
backlimb
Seismic Example: San Joaquin basin, California, U.S.A.

Composite Fault-Bend Fold with Growth Strata
onlapping
growth strata
folded
growth strata
folded
growth strata
onlapping
growth strata
time transgressive
angular unconformity
Sequential model of a growth fault-bend fold (Medwedeff, 1989; Suppe et al., 1992) with a sedimentation rate equal to the uplift rate. Model 1 consists of a composite fault-bend fold developed
above a ramp between detachments. Growth strata in the backlimb are folded concordantly with
the underlying kink band. In contrast, undeformed growth strata onlap the forelimb. In Model 2,
additional slip widens kink bands and the growth pattern is maintained. In Model 3, fault slip is
greater than ramp width. Thus, strata are refolded from the back limb (A-A) onto the crest of
the structure, which widens with fault slip. Growth strata are also re-folded above the crest, as
they pass through active axial surface A. Formerly inclined growth strata from the backlimb
become horizontal. Coeval deposition above the fold crest forms a time trangressive angular
unconformity. In Model 3, the sedimentation rate is held constant and equal to the uplift rate of
particles within the back limb.
Seismic reflection profile across the Western San Joaquin basin (Lost Hills anticline) showing
contrasting patterns of growth strata between backlimb (west) and forelimb (east) that are
consistent with fault-bend folding where sedimentation rate is less than or equal to uplift rate
(see model 2, left). The fanning of limb dips above the front limb may be due to sedimentary
drape and compaction, or may reflect a component of limb rotation in fold growth (see section
1A-3).
25
1B-2: Fault-propagation folds

Basic concept
Examples
Fault-propagation folds form at the tips of faults and consume slip. These folds are generally asymmetric, with forelimbs that are much steeper and narrower than their corresponding backlimbs. Several modes of folding at fault tips have been described to explain these
structures, including: constant thickness and fixed axis fault propagation folding (Suppe and
Medwedeff, 1990); trishear folding (Erslev, 1991; Hardy and Ford, 1997; Allmendinger, 1998);
and basement-involved (triple junction) folding (Narr and Suppe, 1994). In this section, we
describe these kinematic theories, emphasizing their common characteristics, and introduce
basic techniques for interpreting fault-propagation folds in seismic data.
Fault-propagation folds are common in

outcrop and at scales typically imaged
by seismic reflection data. This field
example (right) has several characteristics of fault-propagation folds, including
asymmetry, the presence of a narrow,
steeply dipping forelimb, and the downward increasing tightness of the fold.
Schematic fault-propagation fold model
The seismic example is a fault-propagation fold at the southern margin of the

Tanan Uplift in the southern Tarim
basin. In this example, a thrust ramp
delineated by fault-plane reflections terminates upward into the forelimb of an
asymmetric fault-propagation fold.
To describe the basic concept of faultpropagation folding, we will consider the

hypothetical case of a fault ramp in cross
section that propagates upward from a
detachment (note that fault-propagation
folds may originate from faults with or
without detachments). As the fault ramp
propagates upward in sequential models
0 to 2, an asymmetric fold develops in the
hanging wall with vergence in the transport direction. The fold consumes slip on
the ramp, with slip being greatest at the
ramp base and zero at the fault tip. As slip
increases, the fault tip advances and the
fold grows larger while maintaining the
same basic geometry.
Field Example
fault
Professor Bill Brown highlighting a fault-propagation fold in Cambrian Fort Sills

limestone, Arbuckle Mountains, OK, U.S.A. (S.C. Hook)
Seismic Example: Tarim basin, China
fault tip
Common characteristics
Although fault-propagation folds exhibit a
wide range of geometries, several characteristics are common to most structures,
including:
1) folds are asymmetric, with forelimbs that
are generally much steeper and more narrow than their corresponding backlimbs;
fault
2) synclines are pinned to the fault tips;

3) folds tighten with depth; and
4) slip on the fault decreases upward, terminating within the fold.
purple arrows denote slip on the

base and top of the green unit
26
Constant thickness fault-propagation folds

Suppe and Medwedeff (1990) present a general relationship between fold shape and fault
shape for parallel (constant thickness) fault propagation folds assuming angular fold
hinges and conservation of bed length. This section describes the kinematic development of a constant-thickness fault-propagation fold, and the quantitative relations that
can be used to model or interpret these structures.
These graphs show the
relationships between
fault shape (2) and fold
shape ( and *) for constant thickness fault-propagations folds. The special case of ramping from
a detachment is shown as
the lines 2 = . These
relations will be used to
interpret a fault-propagation fold imaged in a seismic profile later in this
section.
Kinematic Model
Constant thickness fault-propagation
folds develop as a fault propagates
upward from a bend. An active, synclinal axial surface is pinned to the fault
tip. As strata pass through this axial
surface, they are folded into the forelimb. Depending on the fault geometry, strata may also pass through the
anticlinal axial surface into the forelimb, or from the forelimb onto the
fold crest. The backlimb develops
much like a fault-bend fold, although
the limb width is typically greater than
fault slip.
Fault-propagation folds have several
geometric relations that are useful in
constructing models and interpreting
structures, including:
1) The distance between the fault
bend and the point where the anticlinal axial surface meets the fault equals
the fault dip-slip at the bend.
2) The bifurcation point of the anticlinal axial surface occurs along the
same bedding horizon as the fault tip.
FPF terminology
The following terms are used in the derivation
and graphs that describe fault-propagation folds.
1 = hanging wall cut-off (lower fault segment)
2 = footwall cut-off (upper fault segment)
= change in fault dip
= forelimb syncline interlimb angle
* = anticlinal interlimb angle
b = backlimb dip
f = forelimb dip
27
Fixed-axis fault-propagation folds

Suppe and Medwedeff (1990) present a second, general relationship between fold
shape and fault shape called fixed-axis fault-propagation fold theory. This theory is
similar to the constant thickness theory, except that it allows for bed thinning or
thickening in the forelimb (see also Jamison, 1987). These thickness changes are
induced because the forelimb anticlinal axial surface is fixed, meaning that material
does not pass through it. The style and magnitude of bed thickness changes are dictated by the initial fault shape and cut-off angles. This section describes the kinematic development of a fixed-axis fault-propagation fold, and the quantitative relations that can be used to model and interpret these structures.
These sequential models (02) illustrate that
fixed-axis fault propagation folds develop in a
similar manner to constant-thickness faultpropagation folds.
However, the anticlinal
axial surfaces are fixed
(inactive), causing forelimb thickening or thinning. Folds with low cutoff angles generally
exhibit forelimb thickening, whereas, folds with
high cutoff angles generally exhibit forelimb
thinning.
Kinematic Models
with forelimb thinning
with forelimb thickening
fixed axial surface

fixed axial surface
forelimb thickens
forelimb thins
FPF terminology
Fixed-axis theory redefines the axial angles (
values) associated with a fault-propagation
fold. The remaining parameters (, , b, and f)
are the same as in constant thickness faultpropagation folds.
e = forelimb syncline exterior axial angle
i = forelimb syncline interior axial angle
e*= anticlinal exterior axial angle
i* = anticlinal exterior axial angle
These graphs show the relationships between fault shape (2) and fold shape (e, e*, i, and i*) for
fixed-axis fault-propagations folds. The special case of ramping from a detachment is shown on the two
graphs at left as the lines 2 = . Note that separate graphs must be used to define the interior (i, and
i*) and exterior (e and e*) axial angles.
28
Seismic interpretation using fault-propagation fold theory

This section presents an interpretation of a structure imaged in seismic reflection data as a fault-propagation fold as described by Suppe and Medwedeff (1990). The seismic profile shows a highly
asymmetric fold, with a poorly imaged forelimb, which are characteristics of many seismic images of fault-propagation folds.
The seismic section shown below is interpreted in five steps on this and the following page. To help distinguish between the two alternative theories, the graph below (from Suppe and Medwedeff,
1990) shows the relationship of forelimb to backlimb dips for both constant thickness and fixed axis fault propagation folds. Pairs of limb dips that plot along the Fixed-Axis Theory curve indicate
that the structure may be interpreted using this theory. Limb dips that plot along, or to the left of, the = 2 curve may be interpreted using constant-thickness theory. The two theories are coincident along the portion of the Fixed-Axis Theory curve that lies on, or to the left of, the = 2 curve.
Limb dips in fault-propagation folds

Limb dips estimated from seismic profile
Step 1: Limb dips are estimated in the seismic profile by interpretation of the reflector dips on the backlimb, and by correlation of
horizons 1 and 2 across the poorly imaged forelimb.
Step 2: Based on the forelimb (f = 58) and backlimb (b = 11) dips estimated on the seismic profile, the fold is inconsistent with fixed-axis theory. However, the structure may be
interpreted as a constant thickness fault-propagation fold with a change in fault dip () of 7
and an initial cutoff angle (1) of 42. On the following page, these values are used to predict
the fold shape ( and *) and cutoff (2) angles, and to generate an interpretation of the
structure.
29
Step 3: To interpret the structure using constant-thickness fault propagation fold theory,
the upper portion of the fold is interpreted
using the kink method, where axial surfaces
bisect the interlimb angles (see section 1A-1).
This interpretation yields a forelimb interlimb
angle () of 61.
Initial Interpretation
Complete Interpretation
The tip of the fault is located by projecting the

axial surfaces that bound the fold crest to
their point of intersection. From this intersection point, follow bedding along the forelimb
(as defined by f) until it intersects the forelimb synclinal axial surface. This intersection
defines the tip of the fault.
Step 4: The remaining fault-propagation fold parameters (2 and *)

are then determined from one of
the two constant thickness faultpropagation fold graphs. Given a
value of 61 and a change in fault
dip () of 7 (from preceding
page), the theory predicts an
interlimb angle (*) of 55.5 and a
cut-off angle (2) of 49. These values are used to complete the
interpretation.
30
Step 5: The interpretation is completed by extending the fault down from its tip at an angle of
49 (based on 2) to the point where it intersects the backlimb synclinal axial surface. At this
point, the fault shallows by 7 (based on ) to a dip of 42. The interior anticlinal axial surface
bisects the interlimb angle between the forelimb and backlimb, and extends down to the fault.
The distance between the point where this axial surface intersects the fault and the fault bend
equals the fault slip at the bend.
In summary, this model-based interpretation provides an internally consistent, area balanced
description of the structure that honors the seismic data. In general, constant-thickness and
fixed-axis fault-propagation fold theories are most applicable to structures with pairs of discrete, parallel axial surfaces bounding fold limbs with roughly constant bed dips. Bed thickness
changes in the forelimb, relative to other parts of the structure, are best explained with fixedaxis theory. Comparisons of the forelimb and backlimb dips can also be used to distinguish
between these two alternative theories. On the following pages, we describe other modes of
folding that may better describe structures with broadly curved fold hinges, variable forelimb
dips, non-parallel axial surfaces, and/or substantial footwall deformation.
Trishear fault-propagation folds
Seismic section
Erslev (1991) proposed an another mode of fault-propagation folding, known as trishear. Trishear folds form
by distributed shear within a triangular (trishear) zone that expands outward from a fault tip. Folds develop
in the trishear zone and cross sectional area, but not bed thickness or length, and are preserved through
deformation. The displacement field, and thus fold shape, is straightforward to calculate. However, it must be
done iteratively. Hence, the method cannot be applied graphically or analytically (Allmendinger, 1998). Here,
we describe some of the basic characteristics of trishear folds, and use the theory as implemented by Hardy
and Ford (1997) and Allmendinger (1998) to model and interpret these structures.
Theory
Kinematic model
Trishear interpretation
The trishear zone (a-b-c) is bound by two surfaces that define an intervening apical angle.
The surfaces may or may not be symmetric
with respect to the fault (Zehnder and
Allmendinger, 2000). To preserve cross sectional area (a-b-c = a-a-b-c) during deformation, there must be a component of displacement toward the footwall, as reflected by the
velocity vectors. To model a trishear fold, the
apical angle, the fault dip, and the propagation
to slip ratio (P/S) of the fault are specified.
(after Erslev, 1991; and Allmendinger, 1998).
This sequential model (0 - 2) shows the development of a

trishear fault-propagation fold at the tip of a thrust ramp
that steps upward from a detachment. The backlimb of the
structure is a simple fault-bend fold. The geometry of the
forelimb is a function of the apical angle, the fault dip, and
the P/S ratio. Small apical angles generally yield tight, highly strained forelimbs, whereas large apical angles generally
yield broad, gently strained forelimbs. At a given apical
angle, the steepness of the forelimb increases with progressive slip. The steepness of the forelimb also increases
downward. This pattern is characteristic of trishear folds,
and contrasts with the constant forelimb dips exhibited by
constant-thickness and fixed-axis fault-propagation folds.
Propagation to slip ratio

The fault-propagation fold in this seismic section has a broadening upward zone of
folding and a fanning of forelimb dips (1). These patterns are forward modeled
using trishear, based on parameters derived through an inversion method
(Allmendinger, 1998). The best fitting model is displayed on the seismic section in
the lower panel.
Fault propagation to slip ratio (P/S) has an important influence on fold shape. Low P/S ratios generally
yield steep, tightly folded forelimbs with pronounced bed thickening. High P/S ratios generally yield shallow, gently folded forelimbs with less bed thickening (from Allmendinger, 1998).
In summary, trishear folds are easily distinguished from constant-thickness and

fixed-axis fault-propagation folds, in that they display an upward-widening, curved
fold limb ahead of the fault tip, which leads to an upward decrease in limb dip.
31
Basement-involved (drape) folding with migrating triple junctions

Fault-propagation folds that involve basement (crystalline) rock are commonplace, and tend to have shapes that differ from those described by constant-thickness and fixed axis fault-propagation
fold models (Suppe and Medwedeff, 1990). Several geometric and kinematic theories have been developed to explain these structures, including models with forelimb shear distributed in triangular
zones, such as the trishear model described in the preceding section (Erslev, 1991; Mitra and Mount, 1998). This section describes another kinematic theory proposed by Narr and Suppe (1994), in
which fold growth is governed by the migration of a fault-fault-fold triple junction. The theory is then applied to interpret a fault-propagation fold in seismic data.
Kinematic model
In the Narr and Suppe (1994) basementinvolved model, folding is driven by the
migration of a fault-fault-fold (axial surface) triple junction. The triple junction
moves upward with progressive fault slip,
causing shear of the footwall that forms a
monocline. Uplift of the hanging wall also
induces folding of the sedimentary cover,
producing a forelimb with bed dips that
are parallel to the dip of the upper fault
segment. Stages 02 show progress development of a migrating triple junction fold
model.
Fold and fault shape
Seismic Example: Orito Field, Putamayo basin, Colombia

These graphs describe
relations among the
five parameters that
describe triple-junction folds. Each graph
is for a specific value.
When modeling structures imaged in seismic sections, is generally selected by
interpreting the forelimb dip value (f). The
dip of the footwall
monocline is also commonly resolved on
seismic sections, leaving one additional parameter to be determined ( or ) before a
unique solution can be
obtained. From Narr
and Suppe (1994).
Triple junction fold terminology

Five parameters describe basement-involved triple junction folds, three of which must be specified to derive the
remaining two values:
1 = hanging wall cutoff of lower fault segment
= dip of upper fault segment (generally = 180- f)
= dip of footwall monocline
= dip of footwall shear orientation
= footwall angular shear
Seismic profile of a basement-involved fault propagation. The

footwall monocline and steep (poorly imaged) forelimb are
characteristic of triple junction fault-propagation fold models.
In the interpretation, the shear orientation () and angle ()
were estimated from the graph at left using: 1) the maximum
forelimb dip value (f), estimated from oriented well core and
surface dips, to define (120); 2) the reflection truncations to
estimate the fault dip ( = 60), and; 3) the dip of the footwall
monocline ( = 9). The interpreted section involves additional
deformation induced by a breakthrough of the main fault, a process which is described later in this section, but nevertheless
the structure maintains the basic geometry described by the
migrating triple junction theory of Narr and Suppe (1994).
32
Growth fault-propagation folding
Seismic Example: Bermejo anticline, Argentina
Syntectonic (growth) strata are folded in distinctive patterns above fault-propagation folds. Forelimb growth structures, in particular, vary among the different fault-propagation fold models and thus can be diagnostic of the folding
mechanism. In this section, we contrast growth patterns developed above fault propagation folds as described by
Suppe and Medwedeff (1990) and trishear folds (Erslev, 1993), using kinematic models and examples imaged in seismic
sections.
Growth fault-propagation fold
Growth trishear fold
Kinematic models
Growth axial surface
Fault-propagation folds of Suppe and Medwedeff, (1990)

grow by kink-band migration, with two active axial surfaces bounding the backlimb, and one or two active axial
surfaces bounding the forelimb. Syntectonic strata above
the fold limbs form growth triangles. When sedimentation rate exceeds uplift rate, as in this model, two growth
triangles develop on the backlimb. Fixed-axis fault-propagation folds have a single forelimb growth triangle,
whereas, constant thickness fault-propagation folds may
have one or two forelimb growth triangles depending on
the fault geometry. This sequential model (02), with a
29 fault ramp and a decollement, is a case where both
constant-thickness and fixed axis theory converge to
yield the same geometry.
Trishear folds (Erslev, 1993) generally develop by

a combination of kink-band migration and limb
rotation mechanisms, and these fold kinematics
are reflected in growth strata. Progressive forelimb rotation during the formation of trishear
folds generally yields an upward shallowing of
bed dips in growth strata. This fanning of limb
dips in trishear growth folds contrasts markedly
with the growth triangles predicted by the constant-thickness and fixed axis theories. This
sequential model (02) (after Hardy and Ford,
1997) has a sedimentation rate that slightly
exceeds the uplift rate. The backlimb of this
model forms by fault-bend folding, yielding a single backlimb growth triangle.
Time transgressive unconformity
Seismic example of
a forelimb growth
truncations
triangle in a faultpropagation fold
from the Bermejo
foreland basin, central Argentina from
Active axial surface
Zapata and Allmendinger (1996).
Reproduced courtesy of the American Geophysical
Union.
Seismic Example: Tarim basin, China
Effects of low sedimentation rates
Sedimentation rate relative to uplift rate can have a pronounced impact on resultant growth geometries. These three
examples (a-c) show the effects of local non-deposition and erosion on growth structures in fault-propagation folds
(after Suppe et al., 1992).
Seismic example of fanning forelimb dips in growth strata from the

Tanan Uplift, Tarim basin, China. Section is overlain by a modeled trishear fold, described in the trishear folding section, that includes modeled
growth horizons (yellow).
33
Breakthrough fault-propagation folds

At any stage of fold growth, faults may cut through fault-propagation folds, altering the geometries of these structures. The shapes of these breakthrough structures are influenced by the path of
the fault, which often breaks through the forelimb or shallows to an upper detachment, as well as the folding mechanism. In cases where the slip on the breakthrough fault is substantial and/or
structures are deeply eroded, only remnants of the original fault-propagation fold geometries may remain. In this section, we use several kinematic models to describe styles of breakthrough fault
propagation folding, and show an example of this type of structure in a seismic section.
Triple junction fold breakthrough
Trishear fold breakthrough
Forelimb breakthrough
Kinematic models
This sequential model (12) shows a constant-thickness fault propagation fold (1) where
the fault breaks through the middle of the forelimb (2). The fault modifies the original fold
geometry by offsetting the hanging wall portion of the forelimb, and producing an additional kink band within the backlimb that develops by fault-bend folding.
Breakthrough styles
Faults in trishear and triple-junction fault-propagation folds may also breakthrough at any stage
of fold growth. These models are examples of synclinal fault breakthroughs in: a) trishear fold
after Allmendinger (1998); and b) a triple junction model after Narr and Suppe (1994). The geometries of breakthrough structures in all classes of fault-propagation folds vary substantially based
on the fault path and, if the fault is non-planar, on folding kinematics after breakthrough.
Seismic Example: Argentina
Models showing possible types of breakthrough structures after Suppe and Medwedeff
(1990). a and b) decollement breakthroughs; c) synclinal breakthrough; d) anticlinal breakthrough; e) high-angle (forelimb) breakthrough; and f) low-angle breakthrough.
This seismic section illustrates a common forelimb breakthrough pattern. Although the forelimb
is poorly imaged, reflection truncations and the hanging wall and footwall positions of the correlated horizon suggest that the fault extends through the structure. Nevertheless, the basic geometry of the fold is consistent with a fault-propagation folding mechanism, implying that this is a
breakthrough structure.
34
Examples
1B-3: Detachment folds

Basic Concept
Detachment folds form as displacement along a bedding-parallel fault is transferred into folding
of the hanging wall layers. Although detachment folds may share some geometric similarities with
fault-bend and fault-propagation folds, they differ from these structures because they are not
directly related to thrust ramps but rather to distributed deformation above detachments. In this
section, we describe basic aspects of the geometry and kinematics of detachment folds. These
insights are used to guide the interpretation detachment folds in seismic images.
Styles of Detachment Folds

Detachment folds form at a variety of scales, as isolated structures or in long fold trains, and
many names are used to describe them. The term detachment fold is commonly applied to symmetric or asymmetric folds that develop above a relatively thick ductile unit and basal detachment. If folds are symmetric, have steep limbs, and develop above a relatively thin ductile unit,
they are often called pop-up or lift-off folds (Mitra and Namson, 1989; Mount, 1990). Lift-off folds
develop by isoclinal folding of the detachment in the core of the anticline, and when they have
flat crests they are referred to as box folds.
Detachment folds are common in outcrop and at scales typically imaged by seismic reflection
data. They have been documented in the foreland of fold and thrust belts such as the Jura,
Appalachian Plateau (Wiltschko and Chapple, 1977), and Tian Shan (Ferrari et al., section 2-14,
this volume). Detachment folds are also common in passive margin fold belts, such as the
Mississippi Fan (Rowan, 1997) and Perdido Fold Belts (Carmilo et al., section 2-24, this volume)
in the Gulf of Mexico, and in the Campos Basin, Brazil, (Demercian et al., 1993), and the Niger
Delta (Bilotti et al., section 2-12, this volume).
Field Example: Canadian Rockies
The field and seismic examples shown

here have many of the common characteristics of detachment folds described
at lower left.
Kinematic models of detachment folds

Seismic Example: Gulf of Mexico
Detachment folds generally share the following
characteristics:
1) An incompetent, ductile basal unit thickened in
core of fold, with no visible thrust ramp.
2) A detachment that defines the downward termination of the fold.
3) Competent pregrowth units that, if present, generally maintain layer thickness.
4) Growth units, if present, that thin onto the fold
crest and exhibit a fanning of limb dips.
35
Geometry and kinematics of detachment folds
Kinematic models of detachment folds
There is no unique, quantitative relationship between fold shape and underlying fault shape for
detachment folds, due in part to the ductile thicknening occurring in the fold core that generally does not preserve bed length or thickness. Thus, it is often difficult to uniquely constrain
the geometry of these structures unless they are completely imaged. Nevertheless, several geometric and kinematic models have been developed (Dahlstrom, 1990; Ephard and Groshong,
1995; Homza and Wallace, 1995; Poblet and McClay, 1996) that can serve as guides for interpreting detachment folds in seismic images.
In this section, we present a geometric and kinematic model of detachment folding developed
by Poblet and McClay (1996) that is particularly useful when analyzing growth strata associated with detachment folding that involves a competent unit. These authors propose three distinct mechanisms by which a fold can develop above a propagating detachment. In each of the
models, it is the geometry and kinematics of folding in the competent layer (in particular, limb
lengths and limb dips) that controls the folding. The incompetent, or ductile layer, is able to
flow into, or out of, the fold core as deformation progresses. Layer thickness, line length, and
area are conserved in the competent layers. If the detachment level is allowed to change, or if
differential shortening occurs in the incompetent unit, then area is conserved in the ductile
layer as well.
Poblet and McClay (1996) present three modes of detachment fold growth that are illustrated
in the figure to the upper right (models 13), and differentiated based on their folding mechanisms as follows:
1) Primarily Limb Rotation. In this model, the limb lengths remain constant but the limbs
rotate to accommodate shortening. A small amount of material must move through the axial
surfaces, inducing a minor component of kink-band migration, as folding progresses. The
incompetent unit is area balanced only if the detachment level varies or differential shortening
occurs in the incompetent unit.
Detachment fold terminology
2) Kink-band Migration. In this model, limb dips remain constant, but their lengths increase to
accommodate shortening. Material moves through the synclinal axial surfaces as folding progresses. The incompetent unit is area balanced only if the detachment level varies or differential shortening occurs in the incompetent unit.
S = Slip
Lf = Front limb length

Lb = Back Limb length
f = Front limb dip
b = Back limb dip
u = Uplift
3) Limb Rotation and Kink-band Migration. In this model, limb dips vary, as do limb lengths,
but the ratio of the limb lengths remains the same. Strata moves through axial surfaces (primarily the synclinal surfaces), and rotate to accommodate shortening. The incompetent unit
area is balanced.
Two fundamental equations relate the shortening and uplift to the limb lengths and limb dips
of these detachment folds: (equations)
S = Lb (1 - cos b) + Lf (1 - cos f + Lt sin f)
u = Lb (sin b) = Lf (sin f)
based on the detachment fold terminology defined in the figure to the lower right.
36
Growth strata associated with detachment folds
Kinematic models of growth detachment folds
It is usually not possible to determine the folding mechanism of a detachment anticline from the
geometry of pregrowth strata alone. For example, the three models on the previous page have
identical final geometries, but the paths they took to get there (i.e., the fold kinematics), and the
folding mechanisms, were quite different. Growth strata are, however, typically diagnostic of folding mechanism because they record the kinematic history of fold growth (see section 1A-3). Thus,
growth strata can be used to distinguish between the modes of detachment folding described by
Poblet and McClay (1996).
As illustrated in section 1A-3, kink-band migration causes growth strata to form narrowingupward kink bands, or growth triangles, with bed dips that are parallel to those of the underlying
pregrowth strata. Growth triangles are bounded by at least one active axial surface. In contrast,
limb rotation causes progressive changes in limb dips that result in a fanning of limb dips in
growth strata. In limb rotation structures, a minor amount of material may still move through
axial surfaces that are continuously changing orientation, resulting in a minor amount of kinkband migration. Poblet and McClay (1996) refer to these as limited-activity axial surfaces.
These models define the activity of axial surfaces that are involved in the three types of detachment folds defined by Poblet and McClay (1996):
Axial Surface Activity
Seismic Example: Gulf of Mexico
Based on these fold kinematics, growth strata have distinctive patterns in each type of detachment folds that are shown in the models (13) at upper right, which are described as follows:
1) Primarily Limb Rotation. In this model, growth strata predominantly display fanning of dips,
recording the progressive rotation of the fold limbs. Small growth triangles form that define
growth strata which migrated through the limited-activity axial surfaces.
2) Kink-band Migration. In this model, growth strata form growth triangles because strata have
migrated through the active synclinal axial surfaces.
3) Limb Rotation and Kink-band Migration. In this model, growth strata display some fanning of
dip due to rotation of the fold limbs as well as growth triangles that record the migration of strata through the active synclinal axial surfaces.
This seismic line images a detachment anticline with patterns of growth strata that reflect folding by both limb rotation and kink-band migration, suggesting that the structure is compatible
with model 3 shown above.
37
Seismic interpretation of a detachment fold: Angola continental slope

In this section, we describe the interpretation of a detachment fold imaged in a seismic reflection profile based on the fold
models presented on the preceding pages.
Initial Observations. The fold from offshore west Africa shown at right is symmetric, with units that conserve layer thickness (3) and other units that clearly do not (1, 4). There is no obvious thrust ramp present, although reflectors underlying
the fold are essentially flat suggesting the presence of a detachment (2).
Initial observations
Structural Interpretation. Based on the initial observations, this structure is interpreted as a detachment fold in the section at lower right. The detachment is interpreted to separate folded layers above from undeformed strata below. Above
the detachment, a poorly imaged stratigraphic interval is thickened in the core of the fold (1). This incompetent unit represents an Aptian salt bed. The units directly above the salt broadly conserve layer thickness (3), indicating these strata
have acted competently during deformation, probably deforming by flexural slip (see section 1A-2). The constant thickness
of the units also indicates that they were deposited prior to folding. Above these units, layers that thin onto the crest of
the fold (4) are growth strata. The growth strata generally fan above the fold limbs, with only small panels in the limbs having the same stratigraphic thickness that they do in the synclines. Thus, the fold grew mostly by limb rotation with only
minor kink-band migration, similar to the model 1 detachment fold of Poblet and McClay (1996).
Calculating detachment depth: Why doesnt it always work?

Several techniques (e.g., Chamberlin, 1910; Epard and
Groshong, 1993; Homza and Wallace, 1995) have been
developed to determine the depth-to-detachment beneath
anticlines based upon balancing the area uplifted in the
fold with the displaced area as shown below in model A. In
cases where the detachment depth is know independently, several authors have pointed out that the predicted
and observed detachment depths do not always match
(Wiltschko and Chapple, 1977; Jones, 1987; Dahlstrom,
1990; Groshong and Epard, 1994; Homza and Wallace,
1995; Poblet and Hardy, 1995). (In the case of the Angolan
detachment fold interpreted in this section, the predicted
depth-to-detachment is greater than 15 km!). These discrepancies arise because balancing the uplifted area with
displaced area has two implicit assumptions, namely that:
1) The thickness of the ductile unit outside of the fold is
maintained, and; 2) All of the material in the thickened
zone comes from within the plane of the section. One or

both of these assumptions may be invalid for detachment
anticlines as well as other types of fault-related folds, as
shown below in model B. In particular, detachment folds
with highly ductile cores involving salt or over-pressured
muds often show withdrawal of material in the synclines
(and away from fold), causing local thinning of the ductile
interval and subsidence of overlying strata. Withdrawn
material is presumably moved into the core of the fold.
Alternatively, or in addition, material in the thickened core
of the fold may be derived from out of the plane of section.
Both processes invalidate the assumptions of classic
depth-to-detachment calculations, leading to predicted
detachment depths that are generally far too deep. Thus,
care should be taken to avoid applying these methods of
calculating depth-to-detachment in detachment folds with
ductile cores.
Structural interpretation
Depth-to-detachment calculations
Model A shows the classic method of calculating the depth to detachment, based on the assumption that the uplift area
is equal to the displaced area. The shortening, which is typically determined by unfolding a layer while conserving line
length, and the uplift area are used to calculate the detachment depth by:
depth-to-detachment = displaced area / shortening
Model B shows a typical detachment fold where the uplift area greatly exceeds the displaced area. In these cases, standard depth-to-detachment calculations inaccurately predict detachment depths.
38
1B-4: Shear fault-bend folds

Basic concept
Shear fault-bend folding produces ramp anticlines with very distinctive shapes that
reflect a significant non-flexural-slip component to the deformation. The structural style
typically shows long back-limbs that dip less than the fault ramp, in contrast with classical fault-bend folding. This section describes the geometry and kinematics of shear
fault-bend folding after Suppe, Connors, and Zhang (2004) and introduces basic techniques for recognizing and interpreting these structures in seismic images.
Recognizing the structural style

The typical structural style for ramp anticlines produced by shear fault-bend folding has
back limbs that dip less in many cases very much less than the fault-ramp (1). If a
significant stratigraphic section is deposited over the back limb during fold growth it
typically shows evidence of limb rotation (2). These ramp anticlines also commonly
show front limbs (3) that are quite narrow relative to their long back limbs.
Seismic Example: Cascadia Canada
39
Shear is the essence
Shear in a seismic example: Cascadia Canada
Classical fault-bend folds (section 1B-1) deform by flexural slip of the beds as they slide over
fault bends (A), conserving layer thickness. In contrast, shear fault-bend folds undergo additional distortion of the hanging wall or footwall, that is they undergo additional shear. This
additional shear usually is concentrated in a weak detachment interval such as shale or evaporite that deforms by bedding-parallel simple shear like the geometric model below (B).
Alternatively, shear may be more distributed as in the analog model from David Elliott (1976)
based on sheets of paper (C) or it may involve a bedding-parallel shortening and thickening,
which is called pure shear. Shear fault-bend folds can also form by some combination of pure
and simple shear or by more heterogeneous deformation as shown below in the distinct-element mechanical simulation by Luther Strayer (D).
Flexural-slip unfolding of a shear fault-bend fold yields a hanging wall shape that doesnt match the
footwall because there has been deformation in addition to flexural slip. In this example from the
Cascadia accretionary wedge, offshore western Canada, the hanging-wall fault shape is determined by unfolding the layers while conserving line length. The difference between the unfolded
hanging-wall fault shape and the actual fault shape yields the shear profile, showing that there has
been layer-parallel simple shear. The shear is concentrated in the yellow and red basal layers.
Interpreted section
Models
A: Classic fault-bend fold
B: Shear fault-bend fold
C: Analog model of shear fault-bend fold
Flexural-slip unfolding gives the shear profile
D: Mechanical model of shear fault-bend fold
40
End-member shear fault-bend folding
Fold types
End-member shear fault-bend folding. We can understand the fundamentals of shear fault-bend
folding and quantitatively check our seismic interpretations by using two simple end-member theories, both involving a weak basal decollement layer of thickness h (shown in yellow). In the simpleshear end member, the decollement layer undergoes bedding-parallel simple shear with no actual
basal fault, just a distributed zone of shear. In the pure-shear end member, the decollement layer
slides above a basal fault and shortens and thickens in a triangular area above the ramp. Mixtures
between these end members are possible, as shown at right, but many actual folds are close to the
end members. Classical fault-bend folding is also an end member, with a basal layer of zero thickness
(h = 0).
The shape of the fold shows us which stratigraphic interval is the decollement layer. The anticlinal
axial surface terminates at the top of the decollement interval at (A). The synclinal axial surface terminates at the bottom (B). Also, if there is pure shear, the synclinal axial surface (C) doesnt bisect
within the decollement layer because the latter is thickened above the ramp. These properties are
useful in seismic interpretation.
Simple-shear end-member
Pure-shear end member

Graphs of end-member theory. These end-member shear
fault-bend fold graphs give the balanced relationship between
ramp dip , back limb dip , and shear (e or ) across the
basal layer. The shear is tan d/h, where d is the displacement
at the top of the basal layer and h is its thickness. The dip of
the back syncline in the basal layer () is useful in the pureshear and mixed cases.
The inset drawing of the simple-shear graph shows a model
shear fault-bend fold that corresponds to the yellow square (
= 23, b = 6.5, and e = 42). The drawing of the pure-shear
graph corresponds to the angles shown by the red square (
= 34, b = 15.5, = 68, and = 30).
Curiously, these shear fault-bend fold graphs also encompass
classical no-shear fault-bend folding, which is reached in the
limit of zero thickness h to the basal layer. Shear (d/h)
becomes infinite (e or = 90) and the limb dip becomes
parallel the fault ( = b) (D).
41
Seismic interpretation of a simple shear fault-bend fold: Cascadia, Canada

Initial assessment. The structure imaged in this seismic section from
offshore western Canada (Hyndman et al., 1994) shows the characteristics of a shear fault-bend fold, especially the steepness of the fault dip
(35-40) relative to the back limb dip (5-13). A front limb much narrower than the back (1) is also typical of shear fault-bend folds.
Interpreting the ramp geometry. The fault picks (shown below in red)
constrain the fault geometry and rule out strongly listric fault interpretations. Also, note that there is a downward dying out of the fault throw
(2), with throw going to zero at the base of the ramp (3). This is characteristic of shear fault-bend folds, in contrast with classical fault-bend
folds.
Significance of synclinal geometry. The back syncline is planar,
bisects the inter-limb angle (4), and terminates at the base of the fault
ramp (3), indicating a simple-shear rather than a pure-shear fault-bend
fold (see models previous page).
Fault picks
Timing of growth. Onlapping shallow reflectors (5) show that 120 m of

growth strata have accumulated. Deformation began soon after termination of slip on the shallow hinterland thrust to the east, as defined by
a seismic horizon (6) that is folded in the backlimb of the shear faultbend fold but is undeformed above the thrust tip in the hinterland
structure. Thickness and dip variations in growth strata record deformation by limb rotation and kink-band migration (5), consistent with
shear fault-bend folding.
42
Refining and testing the seismic interpretation: Cascadia, Canada

Refining the interpretation. This structure is more
complex than the simple models shown previously
because the fault ramp is not straight but composed of
two segments dipping 35 and 40. Furthermore the
backlimb has two kink bands ab and bc of different dips
(1 and 2).
Two segments of the back limb
Testing the interpretation. Let us begin by treating

each kink band of the backlimb (1 and 2) separately,
predicting two shear amounts from the two limb dips.
Then we will compare the predicted shear with the
shear determined from unfolding the hanging wall to
see if our interpretation is consistent.
Applying the simple-shear graph (shown at far right),
we find that a backlimb dip b of 11-12 within the lower
kink band ab and a lower ramp dip of 35 predict an
external simple shear e of 31-32 (1'). This agrees with
the shear e of 31 determined by unfolding the hanging wall while conserving bed length as shown below
(1"). The backlimb dip b of 5 within the upper kink
band bc and an upper ramp dip of 40 predict an
external simple shear ae of about 8 (2'), which also
agrees with shear determined by the unfolding (2").
These quantitative tests give us more confidence that
our seismic interpretation of this ramp anticline as a
shear fault-bend fold is reasonable.
Interpreted depth section
Two intervals of shear
43
Evolution of shear fault-bend folds
Relationships of backlimb dip (b) to shear (e and a)
Kinematic evolution. Both simple- and pure-shear fault-bend folds develop by

combinations of limb lengthening (kink-band migration) and limb rotation. The
graphs at right show the relationship between limb dip and shear for both fold
types. In the limit of large shear (i.e., displacement), the fold geometry in pregrowth strata approaches the geometry of classical fault-bend folding, with a
back-limb dip that approaches the ramp dip ( approaches b). However, even
in these cases folds will grow with a component of limb rotation, recording
their shear fault-bend fold heritage.
Heterogeneous simple shear
Note that in this heterogeneous simple-shear fold that the highest shear interval
defines the base of the backlimb panel that most closely approaches the ramp dip.
Growth strata. The combination of limb rotation and limb lengthening that
occurs in shear fault-bend folding is recorded by growth strata, as illustrated in
the sequential kinematic models (A1-A3) shown below. Fanning of dips recording limb rotation (1) and growth triangles recording kink-band migration (2)
(see section 1A-4). Growth strata in the example from the Niger delta at right
show evidence of limb rotation.
As mentioned above, the fold geometry in pre-growth strata approaches the
geometry of classical fault-bend folding, with bed dips (3) approaching the
ramp dip, in the limit of large shear (i.e., displacement). The sequential large
shear model at right (B1B2), however, demonstrates that the component of
limb rotation is recorded in growth strata (4), and thus can be used to distinguish large shear fault-bend folds from classical fault-bend folds.
Given a constant ramp dip, the backlimb dip (b) steepens as shear (e and ) increases. Points A1 to A3 correspond
to models presented at lower left.
Large shear (displacement) fault-bend folds
Niger delta limb rotation
Limb rotation plus kink-band migration
44
Seismic interpretation of pure-shear fault-bend folds: Nankai trough, Japan

Initial assessment. This line shows ramp anticlines developed in overpressured
Shikoku basin turbidites above the master detachment (D) of the Nankai trough
accretionary wedge. Note that the degree of shortening in the structures increases from south to north. Notice the qualitative characteristics of shear fault-bend
folds, including backlimb dips that are less than ramp dip (A). Nevertheless these
structures are more complex than the end-member models because of superposed
low-amplitude detachment folding and secondary deformation, seen in both footwalls and hanging walls (B).
This depth-migrated dip line passes through Ocean Drilling Project holes ODP-808
and ODP-1174, which reach to the top of oceanic crust (C) (line NT62-8 Moore et
al., 1990, 1991, 2002). The 19-meter-thick master detachment was cored in ODP-808
just above transparent pelagic sediments of the Shikoku basin (D).
Nankai trough, Japan
45
Refining the seismic interpretation: Nankai trough, Japan

Strategy. We can test our qualitative interpretation by comparing the seismic geometry with the end-member theories.
Picking the fault

Pure-shear end member
Fault and limb geometry. In the seismic section shown at upper right, the faultramp is located based on reflector terminations shown as red arrows and by core
from the ODP-808 hole (1). This gives a remarkably straight ramp, dipping at = 35,
which is much greater than the average dip of the irregular backlimb (b = 11-13),
suggesting that this is a shear fault-bend fold. The back syncline in the strong reflectors (2) is displaced substantially to the hinterland of the base of the ramp, which
favors pure-shear or mixed-shear models that we now test.
Comparing with the end-member theory. Plotting the backlimb dip b = 13 and
ramp dip = 35 on the pure-shear graph at far right (3) predicts a back synclinal dip
= 31 in the basal decollement layer, which quantitatively agrees with the seismic
image at right. In theory, the location of the top of the decollement layer (in orange)
is at the inflection in the back syncline, which agrees with the location indicated
independently by the fault cutoff of the back anticline (4) supporting our pureshear fault-bend fold interpretation. A complete interpretation is shown on the seismic image at lower right (see also Suppe et al., 2004).
Comparing the seismic with an

end-member model
Fault slip. The back-dip and ramp angles plotted on the graph (3) also give us the
shear = 69 of the basal layer. From this we can calculate the fault slip d = 390 m,
based on a basal layer thickness h of about 230 m (tan = d/h = 1.7).
Depth section
Interpreted depth section
46
1B-5: Imbricate fault-bend folds

Basic concept
Seismic Example: Alberta Foothills, Canada
Imbricate structures form by the stacking of two or more thrust sheets and are common in fold
and thrust belts worldwide. Imbricate structures can form by break-forward propagation of thrust
sheets, by break-backward thrusting, or with coeval motion on both deep and shallow faults. In this
section, we describe the basic characteristics of imbricate structures, and outline an approach to
interpret these structures in seismic profiles using imbricate fault-bend fold theory (Suppe, 1983;
Shaw et al., 1999).
Break-forward imbricate
Break-backward imbricate
Kinematic Models
Seismic Example: Niger Delta, Nigeria
Imbricate structures develop where two or more thrust sheets are stacked vertically. These thrust
faults may or may not involve detachments, but imbricate structures are more common in regions
with detachments. In the sequential break-forward model (02) shown above, slip on the deep
thrust fault produces a fault-bend fold that refolds the overlying thrust sheet. In the sequential
break-backward model (02), a pre-existing fault-bend fold is cut by a shallow, younger thrust ramp.
Imbricate fault-bend folds typically contain:
1) Two or more vertically stacked thrust ramps;
2) Bedding dips that change across thrust ramps; and
3) Fold limbs at high structural levels with multiple
dip domains, reflecting refolding caused by multiple ramps.
(Note: multiple dip domains may also be produced by
multi-bend fault-bend folds, see section 1B-1).
These seismic sections show the three common characteristics described in the model
at left, including (1) multiple ramps, (2) changes in bedding dip across ramps, and (3)
multiple dip domains in fold limbs
47
Interpreting break-forward imbricate structures using fault-bend fold theory

Suppe (1983) presents a strategy for interpreting break-forward imbricate structures based on the
fact that each lower imbricate increases the dips in the overlying imbricates by fixed or quantum
amounts that are predictable using fault-bend fold theory. Here we assume that bed-length and
thickness are conserved and that all faults step up from a detachment at the same initial step-up
angle (ramp dip). This section describes how to implement this approach to interpret imbricate
structures imaged in seismic sections.
Dip values measured on seismic profile
Theory
Imbricate fault-bend fold theory describes the increases in dip order caused by refolding of shallow thrust
sheets by younger and deeper faults. In model 0, with a
single thrust ramp A, the forelimb and backlimb dip values are first order (-I and +I), because each limb was
formed by strata passing over a single fault bend.
Incipient thrust B is shown in the footwall of thrust A. In
model 1, slip on fault B refolds the shallow thrust sheet,
producing second order (-II and +II) dip panels. These
second order panels were folded once by thrust A, and
again by thrust B. The dips of the forelimb and backlimb
panels (-I, +I, -II, and +II) are prescribed by fault-bend
fold theory based on the initial cutoff angles ().
Two backlimb dip values are observed in this seismic section near the well. The lesser value (-I = 13)
occurs between faults A and B, and in the hanging wall of fault A to the right of the well. The steeper
value (-II = 25) is restricted to the hanging wall of fault A. These two backlimb dip values are compared with the values shown in the table at lower left, to determine if they are consistent with imbricate fault-bend fold theory.
Interpreted section
Forelimb and backlimb dip values are based on the initial cutoff angle () and the number of imbricated thrusts. This table shows the prescribed forelimb and backlimb dips for first- through seventh-order (I-VII) panels based on 8 to 24 fundamental cutoff angles. The order of the dip panel (IVII) generally corresponds to the number of imbricated faults.
Dip panels are typically measured on seismic sections, and then compared with rows of prescribed
values. If a general match between observed and prescribed dip values is obtained, then the structure can be interpreted using this table. If a match is not obtained, it may suggest that the initial
cutoff angles of the ramps are not equal, requiring use of values different that those on this table
(see Mount et al., 1990). These more complex situations can be interpreted using the folding vector technique presented on the next page.
The two backlimb dip values (-I = 13 and -II = 25) correspond to a 13initial cutoff angle based on the
table at left (see row highlighted in yellow). Thus, the geometries of faults A and B can be interpreted
as part of a break-forward thrust sequence. The lower fault (B) dips at 13, corresponding to the prescribed initial cutoff angle. It shallows to upper and lower detachments based on simple fault-bend
fold theory (see section 1B-1) with = = 13. The upper fault (A) dips at the second-order value (-II
= 25) where it lies above the backlimb kink band formed by fault B. Where fault A extends beyond the
underlying backlimb kink band, it dips at -I = 13, corresponding to the prescribed initial cutoff angle.
The geometries prescribed by the table match the reflection patterns closely. Note, however, that
other faults in the section further complicate some aspects of the geometry.
48
Interpreting break-forward imbricate structures using folding vectors

Here we describe a method of interpreting break-forward imbricate structures using folding vectors
(Shaw et al., 1999). This method can be applied to a wide range of structures, including imbricate
systems where initial cutoff angles of faults vary, bed thickness changes occur, or faults do not sole
to detachments. Folding vectors describe the relative displacement of bedding or other surfaces,
such as faults, across a fold limb or kink band. Thus, folding vectors can be used to describe the
refolding of overlying thrust sheets due to imbrication. In this section, we describe how to determine folding vectors and use them to interpret a break-forward imbricate structure imaged in a
seismic section.
Using folding vectors

To describe how folding vectors are used to interpret break-forward imbricate structures, we will consider the case of a shallow thrust sheet (above fault A) being refolded by a deeper
thrust (B). In model 1, slip on the deep thrust B has produced
a backlimb kink band that must refold the overlying thrust
sheet (A). Hence, the orientation of fault A, and beds in its hanging wall, will change as the thrust sheet passes over the underlying kink band. In model 2, the deflection of bedding across the
deep kink band is used to determine the folding vector (U).
Folding vectors are measured parallel to axial surface orientations. The deflection of thrust A across the deep kink band is
described by vector X, which is equal to the folding vector U.
This results in shear, and hence line length, being preserved
parallel to the axial surface orientation. The orientation of bedding that is refolded in the hanging wall of fault A can be determined using fault-bend fold theory (see section 1B-1), or by
using folding vectors as shown in model 3. However, in this
(and perhaps many) cases, the axial surface orientation
changes between the footwall and hanging wall of fault A
because bed dips change. Thus, the new hanging wall axial surface orientation must be used to measure a new folding vector
(Y), which is equal to the deflection of fault A. This folding vector, in turn, equals the deflection of bedding in the hanging wall
of fault A that is described by vector Z.
This method also applies in cases where axial surfaces do not
bisect interlimb angles, and thus bed thickness is not preserved. In all cases, however, proper use of folding vectors
results in area-balanced interpretations.
Measuring a folding vector

The folding vector method is used to
interpret this seismic section, in which
fault A is refolded by an underlying
kink band bounded by axial surface S.
Fault A enters the left side of the kink
band at a dip of 22. The folding vector
U is measured as the deflection of a
bed* across axial surface S in the footwall of fault A.
*Note that folding vectors must be measured parallel to, but not necessarily along,
axial surfaces. In this case, the paired
axial surface corresponding to S is located
off the right side of the section, so the folding vector is measured at an arbitrary
point in the direction parallel to axial surface S.
Interpreting a folded thrust
The folding vector U is then used to

predict the deflection of the fault (A)
across the kink band (U = X). The predicted fault position is consistent with
reflection terminations that appear to
represent fault cutoffs. Moreover, the
folded fault dips about 30, roughly parallel to beds in the overlying kink band
(T-T).
Note: This method can also be used to model the folding of angular
unconformities, sedimentary growth wedges, and other cases where
bed dips within a kink band are not parallel.
49
Recognizing break-back thrusting

This section describes fault and fold patterns that are common in break-backward imbricate structures, and shows examples in seismic sections.
Patterns of fault cutting older fold limbs
Patterns of break-backward thrusting in seismic data
To describe structural patterns common in break-back imbricate structures, we will consider some
simple patterns for a shallow, break-backward thrust ramp (model A1) and detachment (model A2)
cutting across a fold limb (S-S) related to an older and deeper thrust. The shallow thrust ramp may
cut across and offset a part of the fold limb without changing fault orientation (model B1).
Alternatively, the shallow thrust could change its orientation across the fold limb, offsetting and
refolding parts of the structure (model C1). In the case of model C1, note that the deep folding vector (U) need not equal the deflection of the break-backward thrust (X), in contrast to the break-forward example described on the previous page. In the case of the detachment, the shallow fault
could follow bedding planes across the fold limb (model B2). Based on fault-bend fold theory
(Suppe, 1983), slip on this shallow detachment would not modify the fold shape. Alternatively, the
shallow detachment could follow bedding across the fold limb but cut up section beyond the fold
(model C2). In this case the shallow fault conforms to one axial surface and offsets the other.
These seismic sections show patterns that reflect thrusting sequence. In section A,
axial surface S terminates upward into a thrust that is overlain by gently dipping strata. This pattern is comparable to that shown in model B1 (at left) and reflects breakback thrusting. In sections B and C, axial surfaces S are offset by shallow thrust faults.
These patterns are comparable to model C2 (at left) and are consistent with breakbackward or coeval, but not break-forward, thrusting.
B: Peruvian Andes
A: Permian Basin, Texas, U.S.A.
C: La Puna, Argentina
Patterns in models B1 and C1 are generally diagnostic of break-backward imbricate thrusting.

However, patterns in models B2 and C2 are more ambiguous. A detachment that conforms to bedding across a fold, as in model B2, can be either a break-backward fault that followed bedding
planes or a folded detachment. Similarly, the pattern shown in model C2 reflects break-backward
thrusting only if the offset axial surface is considered active (i.e., it is pinned to a bend or tip of the
underlying thrust). In contrast, if the offset axial surface is inactive (S), then the pattern may reflect
either break-backward thrusting or coeval motions on the deep and shallow faults. Thus, some patterns are diagnostic of thrusting sequence while others are not. Care should always be taken in
interpreting thrusting sequence based on fault and fold shapes.
50
Determining thrusting sequence using growth strata

Growth strata can be used to determine the thrusting sequence in cases where two or more growth structures can be related to separate faults. Associating growth structures with specific faults can
be difficult in cases where thrust sheets are everywhere vertically superimposed, but it is straightforward where faults are separated, at least in part, horizontally. This section presents seismic profiles with examples of break-forward and break-back thrust systems interpreted using growth strata.
A: Break-forward thrusting
These seismic sections both image two faults (X and Y) that are separated horizontally at shallow levels, but vertically overlap one another
at depth. In section A, the fold associated with fault Y does not deform,
and thus pre-dates, the annotated horizon. The fold related to fault X
clearly deforms, and thus post-dates this horizon, reflecting a breakforward thrusting sequence. In section B, the fold associated with fault
X does not deform, and thus pre-dates, the annotated horizon. The fold
related to fault Y clearly deforms, and thus post-dates, this horizon,
reflecting a break-backward thrusting sequence. Both seismic images
are from the deepwater Niger Delta, Nigeria.
B: Break-back thrusting
51
1B-6: Structural wedges
Examples
Field Example
Basic concept
Structural wedges contain two connected fault segments that bound a triangular, or wedgeshaped fault block. The two fault segments, which typically include two ramps or one ramp and
one detachment, merge at the tip of the wedge. Slip on both faults accommodates propagation
of the wedge tip and causes folding (Medwedeff, 1989). Wedges occur at a variety of scales. At
large scales associated with mountain fronts, wedges are typically referred to as triangle zones
(Gordy et al., 1975). In this section, we describe common types of wedges and illustrate how
these structures are interpreted in seismic sections.
Conjugate faulting theory
Kinematic Model
Structural wedge in Carboniferous Rundle Formation, Front Ranges of the

Canadian Rockies. Note the highly deformed rocks near the wedge tip.
Several smaller wedges are contained within the larger wedge structure.
(J. H. Shaw and F. Bilotti)
Seismic Example: Alberta Foothills, Canada
(above left) Brittle failure of rocks in compression commonly leads to the development of two conjugate
thrust faults that dip in opposite directions (Anderson, 1942). Planes of weakness, such as bedding, can
also lead to the development of detachments. In cross section (above right), two conjugate thrusts
bound a wedge-shaped fault block and merge at the wedge tip (model 0). Slip on both bounding faults
causing propagation of the wedge (model 1). In this case, the wedge propagates along a detachment, and
causes folding of the hanging wall block. The lower thrust is commonly referred to as the forethrust or
sole thrust, and the upper thrust is called the back thrust or roof thrust (Boyer and Elliot, 1982).
Wedges exhibit a wide range of geometries.
However, several characteristics are common
to most wedge structure, including:
1) presence of coeval fore- and back-thrusts;
2) folding localized along an active axial surface pinned to the wedge tip; and
3) folds may exist in the footwall of the back
thrust that produce structural relief.
This seismic section images a large structural wedge, or triangle zone, at the eastern front of the
Canadian Rocky Mountain fold and thrust belt. The common characteristics of structural wedges,
(13) as described at left, are present in this structure. Note that a second, smaller back thrust is
present within the main wedge block.
When the back or roof thrust and its hanging wall are gently tilted or warped, but not deformed to
the extent exhibited within the wedge block, the term passive roof thrust is sometimes used. Passive
roof thrusts are common in triangle zones, as shown in this example.
52
Wedge models developed using fault-bend fold theory

Structural wedges exhibit a variety of shapes and styles that reflect initial fault geometries, propagation direction, and folding mechanisms. In this section, we present a series of kinematic models that
describe basic types of structural wedges governed by fault-bend fold theory (Suppe, 1983; Medwedeff, 1989; see section 1B-1). Models A through C involve detachments, whereas model D does not.
A (02): Simple wedge with a detachment and

back thrust. Propagation of the wedge tip forms
a kink band above the back thrust that is bounded by an active axial surface, which is pinned to
the wedge tip. Strata in the kink band are parallel to the back thrust ( = 0) because the fault
rises from a detachment ( = 0).
Note: green dashed lines are active axial surfaces,

red dashed lines are inactive axial surfaces. See
section 1B-1 for description.
B (02): Wedge with a lower forethrust ramp

and an upper detachment that acts as the back
thrust. With slip, the wedge tip propagates
along the detachment surface. Strata within
the wedge are folded in an anticlinal fault-bend
fold that deforms the detachment or back
thrust. A kink band develops above the back
thrust with strata that are parallel to the
underlying fault and fault-bend fold. The synclinal axial surface pinned to the wedge tip is
active, as is the anticlinal axial surface within
the wedge block. The anticlinal axial surface
above the back thrust, however, is inactive.
C (02): Wedge formed by a dipping forethrust

and back thrust. With slip, the wedge tip propagates along a detachment surface. Strata within
the wedge are folded in an anticlinal fault-bend
fold that deforms the back thrust. A kink band
develops above the back thrust with strata that
are parallel to the underlying fault, but that dip
more steeply than the beds within the wedge
block. Both the synclinal axial surface pinned to
the wedge tip and the anticlinal axial surface
pinned to the fault bends are active. The anticlinal axial surface in the hanging wall of the
back thrust is active (in contrast to model B)
because a small amount of strata is folded from
the crest into limb, thus passing through the
axial surface. These kinematics facilitate the
conservation of bed length. Alternatively, a
small amount of shear or bed-parallel extension
could accommodate fault slip without moving
strata from the fold crest into the limb.
D (02): Wedge formed by a dipping forethrust

and back thrust. With slip, the wedge tip propagates along the trajectory of the forethrust.
Strata within the wedge are not folded, as they
do not pass over a fault bend. A kink band
develops above the back thrust with strata
that dip more steeply than the fault. The geometry of the kink band () is governed by faultbend fold theory (see section 1B-1), with
equal to the acute angle between the back
thrust and the propagation direction, and as
the hanging wall cutoff angle relative to the
propagation direction.
Note that in this wedge the roof thrust locally
cuts down the stratigraphic section as it
extends upward. This is an unusual relationship for thrust faults, but nevertheless may
occur in non-decollement wedges.
53
Seismic examples of structural wedges

Here we present examples of structural wedges imaged in seismic reflection data.
B: Santa Barbara basin, CA, U.S.A.

Section A images a simple structural wedge that involves a back
thrust extending upward from a forethrust ramp. The wedge tip
propagation direction is along the path of the forethrust. Note that
in this case, the back thrust has very little displacement relative to
the forethrust. Section B images a wedge comprised of a gently
dipping back thrust that extends from a forethrust ramp. The
wedge propagation direction is along the path of the forethrust,
which corresponds with an angular unconformity. Folding at the
wedge tip is consistent with the pattern displayed in model D on
the previous page. Section C images a complex structural wedge
comprised of a back thrust extending upward from a folded
detachment similar to model A on the previous page. The detachment level is constrained by the discordance of strata and the
base of the thrust ramp located east of the wedge tip. The wedge
structure, including the detachment, overlies an anticline that is
related to a deeper level of faulting.
A: Niger Delta, Nigeria
C: Dashen structure, Sichuan basin, China
54
Growth structure in wedges

This section describes growth structures above wedges that are modeled using fault-bend fold theory, after
Medwedeff (1989). Growth structures can be very helpful in distinguishing structural wedges from other
types of fault-related folds.
Seismic Example: Sumatra, Indonesia
Kinematic models
Wedges
Forelimb fault-bend folds
Interpreted section
In wedges that are governed by fault-bend fold theory (see section 1B-1), folds grow by kink-band migration.
Folding generally occurs along an active axial surface that is pinned to the propagating wedge tip. In cases
where sedimentation rate exceeds uplift rate, syntectonic strata form growth triangles above the wedge tip
that are bounded by a planar synclinal (active) axial surface and a curved anticlinal (inactive) axial surface
(model W1). In contrast, simple forelimb fault-bend folds have growth triangles bound by a curved synclinal
(inactive) axial surface and a planar anticlinal (active) axial surface (model F1). In cases where uplift rate
exceeds sedimentation rate, the contrast between wedges and simple fault-bend folds is even more distinct.
In a structural wedge, growth strata are folded about an active synclinal axial surface and are parallel to the
underlying forelimb dip (model W2). In contrast, syntectonic strata are not folded above the forelimb of a
simple fault-bend fold (model F2), because they have not passed through an active axial surface. Growth strata, therefore, are horizontal, or maintain a primary sedimentary dip, and onlap the forelimb.
(right) This seismic section images a structure with characteristics of a growth wedge. The structure consists of a forelimb developed above a south-dipping forethrust. Growth strata thin onto the crest of the structure, and are folded above the forelimb. The synclinal axial surface is roughly planar and folds the growth
strata. In contrast, the anticlinal axial surface is curved, with an abrupt change in orientation at the contact
between pre-growth and growth strata. Based on this growth pattern, which is similar to model W1 above,
the structure is interpreted as a wedge. (For more details on this interpretation, see Shaw and Brennan, section 2-23, this volume).
55
Shear fault-bend fold wedges
Seismic example: Niger Delta, Nigeria
Structural wedges can form with non-flexural-slip components of deformation, resulting in fold geometries that differ from those presented on the
previous pages. Here, we describe a class of these wedges that form by
shear fault-bend folding (Suppe et al., 2004; see section 1B-4), and show an
example in a seismic section.
Kinematic models
Simple-shear wedges (model A) have shear in the footwall of the back

thrust. This shear folds, and induces slip, on the fault, producing a forelimb
that is similar to the back-limb fold produced by the forward-thrust, simpleshear fault-bend fold equivalent (see section 1B-4). In this model, growth
strata are eroded above the fold crest. Pure-shear wedges (model B) have
shear in the hanging wall of the back thrust that occurs as the wedge tip
propagates. The back thrust is not folded, and slip produces a forelimb that
is similar to the back-limb fold produced by the forward-thrust, pure-shear
fault-bend fold equivalent (see section 1B-4). In both shear wedges, the forelimb beds dip less than the underlying back thrust, and the growth structures record folding by a combination of limb rotation and kink-band migration (see section 1A-5). In contrast, classical fault-bend fold wedges (model
C) generally have hanging wall beds that are parallel to the back thrust, and
growth structures that record folding dominantly by kink-band migration.
The seismic section shown above

images two thrust ramps rising from a
detachment. The ramp on the left dips
in the same direction as the majority
of faults in the region, and thus is considered a forethrust. The ramp on the
right is a back thrust. Slip on the back
thrust produces a hanging wall structure that has the characteristics of a
shear fault-bend fold. However, given
that this is a back-thrust above a
detachment, the structure is a shear
wedge. Based on the fault cut-off angle
() and back-limb dip (b), the structure is interpreted as a pure-shear
wedge in the section shown at right.
Based on shear fault-bend fold theory
(Suppe et al., 2004, see section 1B-4),
the fault cutoff angle and backlimb dip
yield a 27 dip of the synclinal axial
surface () in the basal layer and a
shear angle () of 67. Growth strata
exhibit a fanning of limb dips that is
consistent with the shear wedge interpretation.
Interpreted section
56
1B-7: Interference structures

Basic concept
Seismic Example: Gulf of Mexico, U.S.A.
Interference structures form when two or more monoclinal kink bands intersect, often yielding distinctive patterns in cross section with anticlines perched above synclines. Interference structures have been documented in
the field and laboratory (e.g., Dewey, 1965; Paterson and Weiss, 1966; Stewart and Alvarez, 1991), and have been
proposed as the origin of structures imaged in seismic profiles (e.g., Mount, 1989; Novoa et al., 1998; Camerlo et
al., section 2-24, this volume). In this section, we describe a simple style of interference structure comprised of
two kink bands with opposing dips, and present examples of these structures imaged in seismic sections.
Kinematic Models
These models (A and B) illustrate interference structures formed by the intersection of two kink bands (1 and 2) that dip
in opposite directions. Model A forms by clockwise shear of the through-going kink band (2), whereas model B forms by
counter-clockwise shear of the through-going kink band (1). In both models the through-going kink band separates the other
kink band into two pieces that are joined along two shear surfaces that are parallel to bedding. As a result, the shear surfaces connect points where the axial surfaces bifurcate. The axial surfaces in these models bisect the interlimb angles (see
section 1A-1), and thus bed length and thickness are preserved. The most distinctive aspect of these structures is that they
yield anticlines perched above synclines.
Kink-band interference can result from many different structural configurations, involving various types of fault-related
folds (Mount, 1989; Medwedeff and Suppe, 1997; Novoa et al., 1998). These three models (CE) illustrate general structural configurations that can yield kink-band interference. The interfering kink bands are developed: C) above two bends
in the same fault; D) by imbrication of two faults; and E) as forelimbs developed above faults that dip in opposite directions. Note that the shallow fold geometries are identical in each of these models. Thus, the geometries of interference
folds are not always diagnostic of the underlying fault configurations. The different structural configurations do, however, involve different patterns of active (green) and inactive (red) axial surfaces, which may, in some cases, be distinguished using growth structures (Novoa et al., 1998; see section 1A-3).
This seismic section images an interference structure from the Perdido fold and thrust
belt (after Mount, 1989; Novoa et al., 1998). The structure is comprised of two monoclinal kink bands that intersect at about 5.2 seconds (TWTT). The interfering kink
bands produce an anticline that is perched above a syncline, similar to the models
shown at left. The sense of shear in the interference structure appears to be counterclockwise, similar to model B. This section is displayed in TWTT, with a V.E. of about
1:1 for a velocity of 2000 m/s, which is representative of the shallow section.
57
Complex interference structure

Interference structures that are faulted and/or involve more than two kink bands may have very complex geometries. In this section, we describe a complex, faulted interference structure imaged
in a seismic section. We use a partial restoration of the structure to document its origins as an interference fold.
The seismic profile shown in panel A images a

complex fold from the Sichuan basin, China. The
structure exhibits the basic pattern of an anticline
perched over a syncline that is characteristic of
interference structures. The structures differ from
the simple models shown on the previous page,
however, in that the core of the fold is cut by a
thrust. A narrow monocline appears to be offset
by this fault.
A: Uninterpreted section
C: Geologic section
B: Interpreted section
D: Partially restored section
In panel B, the section is interpreted with a simple

interference fold below the main thrust. Folds in
the hanging wall of the thrust are interpreted to
be displaced elements of the interference fold
that, in part, are refolded by a steepening upward
splay of the fault. Panel C shows the same interpretation of the structure without the seismic
image. Restoration of slip on the main fault and
the associated folding in panel D yields a simple
interference structure.
This example is intended to illustrate that interference structure may have complex geometries.
Nevertheless, these structures can generally be
interpreted using a combination of fault-related
folding theories. This interpretation invokes the
basic patterns of interference folding with the kink
method (section 1A-1) and fault-bend folding (section 1B-1) to describe the hanging wall structure.
The hanging wall portion of the offset monocline
is refolded using the concept of folding vectors
described in section 1B-5.
Interference structures also generally exhibit very
distinct patterns in map view and three dimensions. For a description of these patterns, see
Novoa et al. (1998) and Camerlo et al. (section 224, this volume).
58
Case
Studies
59
Part 2: Case Studies
2-1: Pitas Point Anticline, California, U.S.A.

John H. Shaw, Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S.A.
Stephen C. Hook, Texaco Inc., Houston, Texas, U.S.A.
John Suppe, Department of Geological and Geophysical Sciences, Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey, U.S.A.
Location: Eastern Santa Barbara Channel, California, U.S.A.
Topics: Fault-bend folding, growth structure, map patterns
Reserves: Gas in Pliocene clastic reservoirs
Pitas Point anticline
The Pitas Point anticline is located in an active fold and thrust

belt in the eastern Santa Barbara Channel, California (Figure 1)
(Namson and Davis, 1988; Shaw and Suppe, 1994). The fold has
a flat crest separating gently north- and south-dipping limbs
that are bounded by the Rincon and offshore Oak Ridge trends,
respectively (Figure 2). Both fold limbs terminate downwards
at about 5 km depth, suggesting the presence of a detachment
in the Miocene Monterey Formation. Upper Pliocene and
Quaternary strata thin onto the crest of the anticline, suggesting that these are growth or syntectonic units. Moving upward
in section, the crest of the fold narrows and migrates to the
north. Thus, shallow strata penetrated by the Texaco 234 #7
well dip gently to the south, whereas, deeper units are horizontal or dip gently to the north. In the following discussion, we
present an interpretation of this structure as a growth faultbend fold that is compatible with these basic observations.
Figure 1: Map of fold trends in the eastern Santa Barbara Channel, California, showing locations
of the Pitas Point trend and seismic profile shown in Figure 2. RT = Rincon trend; ORT = offshore
Oak Ridge trend; ORF = Oak Ridge fault; MCT = Mid-Channel (Blue Bottle) trend.
Figure 2: Post-stack, time-migrated, and depth converted 3-D seismic reflection profile across the Pitas Point trend, with formation tops and dipmeter from the Texaco 234 #7 well. Downward
terminating kink bands (2) indicate a detachment at about 5 km depth (see section 1A-2, Recognizing thrust and reverse faults). Shallow gas sag is documented by Mastoris (1990).
60
2-1: Seismic interpretation
Pitas Point anticline
We propose a simple growth fault-bend fold model (Figure 3)

and interpretation (Figure 4) to describe the geometry and
kinematic evolution of the Pitas Point anticline.
growth
pre-growth
2

dipping over
horizontal strata
3

shallow detachment
4
slip on shallow detachment

Figure 3: Sequential models of a growth fault-bend fold (Suppe et al., 1992). Model 1 contains
two fold limbs developed above a ramp between decollements. The fold is in the crestal uplift
stage of growth (Shaw et al., 1994), as fault slip is less than ramp width. In Model 2, additional
slip widens kink bands, which narrow upward in the growth section (Suppe et al., 1992). In Model
3, fault slip is greater than ramp width. Thus, strata are refolded from the back limb (A-A) onto
the crest of the structure, which now widens with fault slip (crestal broadening stage, Shaw et al.,
1994). Growth strata are also folded above the crest, generating a pattern of dipping over horizontal beds and offsetting the shallow crest from the deep crest of the fold. These patterns, as well as
the fault cutoffs, are observed in the 3-D seismic data from the center of the Pitas Point anticline
(Figure 2). Model 4 includes minor displacement on a shallow detachment producing subtle folding that is similar to patterns observed above the Pitas Point anticline in Figure 4.
Figure 4: Post-stack, time-migrated and depth converted 3-D seismic reflection profile across the Pitas Point trend, with formation tops and dipmeter from the Texaco 234 #7 well. Downward terminating kink bands, that are highlighted in Figure 2, indicate a detachment at about 5 km depth (see section 1A-2, Recognizing thrust and reverse faults). Labeled axial surfaces correspond to those
modeled in Figure 3.
Fault-bend folds in the crestal broadening stage exhibit dipping over horizontal strata in the growth section on the fold crest
(Figure 3). This pattern is observed in the seismic image of the Pitas Point anticline and in the dipmeter of the Texaco 234 #7
well. In Figure 4, we interpret the anticline as a simple fault-bend fold developed above a north-dipping (13N) thrust ramp that
connects detachments in the Miocene Monterey Formation. Based on fault-bend fold theory, where = = 13, the forelimb
should dip 14S ( = 14) and be slightly narrower than the backlimb (R=.95). These values were used to guide the interpretation, which generally conforms to reflection geometries. The fold is slightly modified by slip on the shallow Montalvo thrust,
which is described by Shaw et al. (1996).
61
2-1: Map-view analysis

To describe the three-dimensional geometry of the Pitas Point anticline, we present a structure contour and axial surface map at the
top of the Pliocene Repetto Formation. The axial surface map is generated using the vertical projection method of Shaw et al. (1994), as
described in Figure 5. We interpret that the fold along section X-X
(Figure 4) is in the crestal broadening stage of growth. Folds in the
crestal broadening stage have a distinct axial surface map pattern
(Figure 6). This pattern is observed in the axial surface map of the
Pitas Point trend (Figure 7), and in a time-slice from the 3-D seismic
survey (Figure 8).
Figure 7: Axial surface map at the top of the Pliocene Repetto Formation, superimposed on a structure contour map of the same horizon that was generated independently
from well control. The plunge of the fold is reflected by pairs of axial surfaces (A-Aand B-B) that converge toward the fold terminations. In the center of the trend, the forelimb
axial surfaces (B-B) are deflected southward. This pattern is consistent with the crestal uplift stage of growth (Figure 6) in the center of the trend and along section X-X. For a
more detailed discussion of the map pattern, see Shaw et al. (1994).
Figure 5: Perspective view of a plunging fault-bend fold. (top): Between sections 3 and 2, fault slip is greater than
the ramp width and the fold is in the crestal broadening stage. As slip decreases to the right of section 2, the fold
enters the crestal uplift stage. Fold plunge is denoted by converging pairs of axial surfaces. (bottom): Axial surfaces
are mapped by projecting their intersections with the mapped horizon vertically to a horizontal datum.
Figure 8: Enlarged (2X) portion of the axial surface map superimposed on a time slice (2.3s TWTT) from the 3-D seismic survey. Note that in the zone of crestal broadening
the trend of axial surfaces B and B are parallel to the seismic reflections in the forelimb. The wide fold crest is imaged as a broad negative (white) amplitude surrounding platform Habitat.
Conclusions:
Figure 6: The axial surface map pattern of a doubly plunging fault-bend fold is characterized by pairs of axial
surfaces that converge at the fold terminations. The zone where the fold is in the crestal broadening stage is
defined by the deflection of the forelimb kink band (B-B) away from the backlimb kink band (A-A), yielding a
wider fold crest.
The Pitas Point anticline is a south-vergent, fault-bend fold developed above a thrust ramp and detachment
within the Miocene Monterey Formation. Maximum slip on the fault is about 3.5 km.
Upper Pliocene and Quaternary strata are syntectonic units folded by displacement on the thrust.
The fold is in the crestal broadening stage of growth in the center of the trend beneath platform Habitat.
62
2-2: Toldado Anticline, Upper Magdalena, Colombia

Alexis Rosero, HOCOL S.A., Bogota, Colombia
Juan Carlos Ramon, HOCOL S.A., Bogota, Colombia
Location: Upper Magdalena basin, Tolima, Colombia
Topics: Fault-bend folding, growth strata
Reserves: Oil in the Albian Caballos sandstones
Avechucos Syncline / Toldado oilfield
The Toldado anticline is part of the buried NNE trending

Ortega fold and thrust belt (Figure 1). This belt is located
below and to the west of the Avechucos syncline. The
Toldado anticline is a NNE-SSW-trending anticline with a
wide, low-angle crest separating gently east- and west-dipping limbs (Figure 2). The structure is interpreted as a faultbend fold. Two models are geometrically possible based on
the fold shape (in Cretaceous strata) and partially constrained fault geometries (Figures 3 and 4). The geometry of
growth strata is used to constrain the degree of fold evolution and to distinguish the structural interpretation. The
near-horizontal growth strata (Paleocene) across the fold
crest indicates that the fold is on the Crestal Uplift Stage (see
Shaw et al., section 2-1, this volume). Paleocene growth strata gets thinner along the crest of the fold. This is partly due
to variable uplift over the fold and partly due to erosion on
the Eocene unconformity. These data indicate that sedimentation rate during the Paleocene was close to, or slightly
higher than, the uplifting rate.
Figure 1: Location map of the Toldado anticline, showing the main structural features of the
study area. Note that the Toldado anticline is located close to the trace of the Avechucos syncline. Location of the seismic line on Figure 2 is shown.
Figure 2: Post-stack, time-migrated, 2-D seismic reflection profile across the Toldado anticline. The line is in TWT but is displayed in 1:1 scale using the velocity function of the Toldado-3 well.
Toldado-3 well and formation tops are shown. Note thinning of Paleocene growth strata (1) across the fold crest. Minor erosion occurs along the crest of the fold associated with the Eocene unconformity. The forelimb downward termination (2) defines an intra-Villeta detachment.
63
2-2: Toldado Anticline

In this interpretation (#1) we consider that the upper detachment is parallel to strata in its footwall and the top of the ramp is located at the base of axial surface A. We observe a forelimb cutoff angle () of 32. However, before this value is used to calculate the ramp dip, the forelimb must
be unfolded across the 8 bend in the upper detachment (). Using fault-bend fold theory, we
obtain a 35 dip of the forelimb before it was folded across the bend in the detachment. This value
serves as the forelimb cut-off angle ( = 35) that, along with the unfolded inter limb angle (
= 74) is used to calculate the change in fault dip ( = 23) an initial cut-off angle of the ramp ( =
26). This yields a 30 dipping ramp.
0
The resulting interpretation implies that the fault-bend fold is in the crestal broadening stage. The
models presented by Shaw et al. (section 2-1, this volume) show that at this stage there should
be dipping growing-strata on top of horizontal crestal beds (see Figure 3, insert). The seismic
does not support this geometry and thus this model is discarded.
dipping over
horizontal strata
Figure 3: Interpreted seismic section assuming a fault-bend fold in

the crestal broadening stage (Interpretation #1).
64
2-2: Toldado Anticline

In this interpretation (#2) we use the observed forelimb hanging
wall cutoff angle, ( = 32), the dip of the upper detachment (13
SE) and the forelimb interlimb angle ( = 79.5) to predict the
change in fault dip (), the initial cutoff angle (), and the slip
ratio (R). Using the anticlinal fault bend fold graphs (see section
1B-1) we derive a value of about 16. With this angle, we obtain
an initial cutoff angle of about 27. The slip ratio R is calculated
as 0.85. This agrees with the slip ratio (S1/S0) measured on the
seismic section.
Note that in this interpretation the shortening and slip is smaller than in interpretation #1, and that the axial surface (A) is not
fixed to the top of the ramp (where the ramp meets the upper
detachment). This implies that this fold is on the crestal uplift
stage (Suppe, 1983; Shaw et al., 1999). In this case, the horizontal growth strata seen on the seismic above the fold crest agrees
with the crestal uplift model (see insert), making this second
interpretation more plausible than the previous one.
In conclusion, based on fault and pre-growth fold geometries,

two structural models are possible for the Toldado anticline.
Growth strata are used to distinguish between these alternative
models, and support our interpretation of the Toldado anticline
as a fault-bend fold in the crestal uplift stage of growth.
Figure 4: Interpreted seismic section assuming a fault-bend fold

in the crestal uplift stage (Interpretation # 2).
65
2-3: Sequatchie Anticline, Tennessee, U.S.A.:

A small displacement fault-bend fold
Shankar Mitra, University of Oklahoma,
Norman, Oklahoma U.S.A.
Location: Appalachian Plateau, Tennessee, U.S.A.
Topics: Fault-bend fold, multiple-bend ramp
Figure 1: Generalized geological map of the Sequatchie anticline in Cumberland and Rhea Counties,
Tennessee (modified from Hardeman, 1966), showing the location of the seismic profile shown in Figures 2
and 3. Omu-S = Middle to Upper Ordovician and Silurian. D-M = Devonian to Mississippian. Pg-Pco =
Pennsylvanian Gizzard Group and Crab Orchard Mountains Group. Pl = Lower Pennsylvanian units above
the Crab Orchard Mountains Group.
The Sequatchie anticline (Figures 1 and 2) is the frontal structure of the Southern Appalachian thrust belt
in southern Tennessee, Georgia, and Alabama. An interpretation of the northern part of the structure in
Cumberland and Rhea counties, Tennessee, is presented based on surface data, a seismic profile, and data
from the ARCO-Ladd #1 well. The structure has a low relief and exposes Mississippian to Pennsylvanian
units on the crest of the structure (Figure 1). Farther south, the relief increases, and Middle Ordovician to
Devonian units are exposed at the surface (Hardeman, 1966; Harris and Milici, 1977).
Figure 2: Part of time-migrated seismic profile through the Sequatchie anticline, Tennessee.
66
2-3: Sequatchie Anticline

Seismic interpretation is based on both a time-section (Figure
2), and a post-stack depth migration (Figure 3), based on a
velocity model constructed from a preliminary depth model.
The structure is related to a thrust fault that originates at the
base of the Cambrian Rome Formation, and climbs to the base
of the Pennsylvanian Gizzard Group. The seismic data, and the
ARCO Ladd #1 well indicate that the fault has a low dip (approximately 5) in the Cambrian Rome and Conasauga Formations,
but has a much steeper dip (15) in the Cambro-Ordovician
Knox Group and the remaining Ordovician to Devonian units.
The steeper fault dip in the Knox Formation is probably related
to the higher competence of this unit. Surface data suggest that
the front limb of the structure has a very steep dip, ranging from
30 to 85.
The Sequatchie anticline is interpreted to be a low-displacement fault-bend fold, related to a multi-bend ramp (Figure 4a).
There are four bends in the fault, each of which defines an
active axial plane. Movement of the hanging wall over the fault
bends results in the development of a series of passive axial surfaces, which originate at the active axial surfaces and migrate
away from them. The active and and passive axial surfaces separate panels of relatively constant dip, which can be identified
from surface and seismic data, and from the dipmeter data in
the ARCO-Ladd #1 well.
The seismic data show a low westward dip of the basement

between shot points 390 and 485, and a steeper eastward dip
between shot points 390 and 325. This geometry is partly due to
a seismic pull-up under high velocity carbonates in the hanging
wall of the Sequatchie thrust, which was apparently uncorrected in the depth model used for the post-stack depth migration.
However, there appears to be a very low-dipping eastward ramp
under the Sequatchie thrust, which drops all units down to the
east. The presence of the ramp is also indicated by dipmeter
data in the footwall. This ramp may have formed along a zone of
weakness in the basement during loading associated with the
emplacement of Valley and Ridge thrusts. The formation of the
Sequatchie thrust fault may have been influenced by the location of this ramp.
DATUM =
1100 feet
DATUM =
1100 feet
Figure 3: Uninterpreted (a) and interpreted (b) time-migrated sections through the Sequatchie anticline. Active axial surfaces are
shown in green, and passive axial surfaces in orange. The seismic section and the interpretation do not correlate 1:1 with the structural
cross section because of crooked line effects.
67
2-3: Sequatchie Anticline

The cross section presented below (Figure 4a) is based on the
seismic interpretation and was restored using line-length balancing (Figure 4b). The restoration shows that the shortening
for the base of the Rome Formation is approximately 5100 ft.
The fault displacement decreases from 5100 ft at the base of the
Rome Formation to 4500 ft at the top of the Knox Group and

2200 ft at the top of the Mississippian units. The forward shear
of the loose line in the restored section suggests a small amount
of differential penetrative strain at the mesoscopic and
microscopic scales within the Silurian to Mississippian units.
This inclined shear profile and proposed penetrative deformation is consistent with the steep front limb of the fold, and the
small fault displacement in the Mississippian units.
ARCO-LADD #1
JEWETT HEIRS
Figure 4: Structural cross section through the Sequatchie anticline, Tennessee, based on seismic data (Figure 2), surface data, and data from the ARCO-Ladd #1
Jewett Heirs well. Active axial surfaces are shown in green and passive axial surfaces in orange. b. Line-length restoration of the structural cross section in a.
Conclusions
The Sequatchie anticline is a fault-bend fold related to a multibend fault ramp connecting major detachments in the
Cambrian Rome Formation and the Pennsylvanian Gizzard
Group.
Macroscopic shortening associated with the formation of the

structure is approximately 5100 ft.
The front limb of the structure is fairly steep, suggesting penetrative deformation within the Silurian to Mississippian units,
which have been transported onto the upper detachment.
68
2-4: El Furrial Field cross section, Eastern Basin, Venezuela

Enrique Novoa, Departamento de Analisis Exploratorio Integrado, Gerencia de Exploracion y Produccion, PDVSA-INTEVEP, Venezuela
Lszl Benkovics, Departamento de Analisis Exploratorio Integrado, Gerencia de Exploracion y Produccion, PDVSA-INTEVEP, Venezuela
Claudia Fintina, Departamento de Analisis Exploratorio Integrado, Gerencia de Exploracion y Produccion, PDVSA-INTEVEP, Venezuela
Javier De Mena, Departamento de Delineacion y Caracterizacion de Yacimientos, Gerencia de Exploracion y Produccion, PDVSA-INTEVEP, Venezuela
Location: Eastern Venezuela Basin, Venezuela
Topics: Fault-bend fold, growth strata
Reserves: 2.0 billion barrels
El Furrial Oil Field
El Furrial Trend is located in the deformation front of the Serrana del

Interior fold belt to the south of the Pirital Fault, Eastern Venezuela Basin
(Figure 1). It is divided into three giant oil fields: El Furrial, Carito, and
Santa Barbara fields. The boundaries between these fields are tear faults
and/or lateral ramps. This structural trend contains actual recoverable
reserves of about 2.0 billion barrels of medium gravity oil. A balanced
cross section through El Furrial field is presented. The structure is asymmetrical, with the backlimb much wider than the forelimb. The backlimb
includes two inclined dip domains while the front limb is composed of
one domain (Figures 2 and 3). We interpret the fold as developing above
a two-bend thrust fault that accommodates about 14 km of shortening
(Figure 4). Growth strata suggest that the fold started growing during the
early-to-middle Miocene. We present a kinematic model that shows how
this structure may have developed.
Figure 2: A depth-migrated 3-D seismic reflection profile that images El Furrial structure. Notice that the image deteriorates between X and X. The blue
ticks show the top of Oligocene picks in the wells. Profile provided by PDVSA E&P.
Figure 1: El Furrial trend (B) is located in the Eastern Basin of Venezuela (A).
69
2-4: El Furrial Field cross section
El Furrial Oil Field
A balanced cross section across El Furrial field is shown in Figure

3. The structure is characterized by a very narrow forelimb and
wide backlimb. The backlimb is made of two inclined dip domains
(A-C and C-C). The kink band A-C dips 27 NW and C-C dips 12
NW. The forelimb is composed of a dip domain (B-B) that dips 20
SE. The kink bands A-C and C-C are parallel to the fault plane. El
Furrial fold started to grow in the early-to-middle Miocene as
shown by a growth triangle (Suppe et al., 1992) in the sequence of
this age interpreted on top of the kink band B-B. This observation
is supported by geochemical data which show biodegradation of
oil (Talukdar et al., 1987). Presumably, this early oil was accumulated when the reservoir was at shallow depth during an early
stage of fold development. Normal faults have been interpreted in
both the hanging wall and footwall. These normal faults may be
related to the development of the foreland basin in front of the
fold belt. A kinematic model (Figure 4) shows the evolution of the
Furrial Fold through time.
Figure 3: A balanced, retrodeformable cross section (X-X)across El Furrial Trend that integrates seismic reflection (Figure 2) and well data. El Furrial trend develops above a two-bend
thrust fault, which causes a very wide backlimb and a narrow forelimb. The steeper portion of the thrust fault is short and the gentle part is very long. The backlimb is interpreted to be
composed of two inclined dip domains (A-C and C-C) which are parallel to the El Furrial fault. On the other hand, the forelimb is composed of a single inclined dip domain (B-B). The
seismic data illuminate the kink bands B-B and C-C very well, however the dip panels A-C and C-A are not well defined by the data. Notice the growth axial surface (G) on top of the
kink band B-B which shows a growth triangle in the early-middle Miocene sequence. This structural trend accommodates around 14 km of total slip.
Figure 4: A balanced, kinematic model of development of the El Furrial trend. a: Incipient fault and
active axial surfaces (A and B) in undeformed strata. b: Slip on the two-bend thrust fault generates
inactive axial surfaces A and Bthat are rigidly translated away from active axial surfaces A and B.
Once axial surface A arrives at the convex bend of the fault, an incipient active surface (C) is generated. Moreover, axial surfaces A, B, and B become inactive and will be rigidly translated along the
upper portion of the thrust fault. c: Additional slip on the fault causes the development of an inactive
axial surface Cand the kink band C-Cstarts to grow until the present geometry is reached. Similar
kinematic models for multibend faults are shown by Medwedeff and Suppe (1997).
Conclusions:
El Furrial field is located within a very asymmetric fault-bend fold where the backlimb is much wider than the forelimb.
Growth strata and geochemical data suggest that it started to grow during early-middle Miocene times.
The fault plane has two bends and is divided into two sections: a narrow, steep ramp and a long, more gentle ramp.
The fault accommodates about 14 km of shortening.
70
2-5: Rosario Field, Maracaibo Basin, Venezuela

Ted Apotria, ExxonMobil Development Company, Houston, Texas, U.S.A.
M. Scott Wilkerson, Department of Geology and Geography, DePauw University, Greencastle, Indiana, U.S.A.
Location: Maracaibo Basin, Venezuela
Topics: Fault-related fold termination geometry and kinematics
Reserves: ~50 MMB (Molina, 1992)
Overview: Fault-related fold terminations typically form due to loss of displacement on the genetically-related thrust fault, an along-strike change in
fault attitude, or both. Constraints on footwall cutoffs and along-strike
displacement are needed to determine the termination mechanism, which
can often be determined from reflection seismic data. Fold geometry from
a single profile does not uniquely establish kinematics.
The Rosario structure is a contractional fault-related fold located in the
western Maracaibo Basin, Venezuela (Figure 1). The plunging southern termination is constrained by industry reflection seismic and well data, and is
interpreted to be due to an along-strike decrease in displacement. The fault
geometry changes from a flat-ramp-flat at the crest of the structure where
displacement is greatest, to simply a ramp near the lateral fault tip. These
observations suggest a kinematic model in which the structure initiated as
a modified fault-propagation fold with an isolated fault ramp within the
stiff layer. With increased shortening, the fault grew to link with upper
and lower detachments in the weaker shale units resulting in a hybridized
fault-bend fold. The geometric elements of a single profile at the crest are
consistent with the Suppe (1983) fault-bend fold model. However, interpretation of the structure in 3-D suggest different kinematics.
Note: A full presentation of the seismic data and interpretation is in
Apotria and Wilkerson (2002). A .mov-format animation of the 3-D structural model of Rosario Field can be downloaded at the AAPG Datashare
web page (http://www.aapg.org/datashare/) and is on the CD-ROM accompanying this book.
Generalized stratigraphy of the western Maracaibo Basin is
summarized in Figure 2. Interpretation of the Rosario structure
is constrained by 2-D time-migrated, 1985- and 1990-vintage
seismic lines (Figure 3). Interpretations from these lines were
converted to depth (e.g., Figure 4) using interval velocities calculated from seismic well ties from the CR-12 well (Figure 3C).
Our discussion will focus on seismic lines CCT-90c-14 and CAT85-1 (Figure 3AC), which cross the crest of Rosario, where the
Figure 1: Principal structural features of the western Maracaibo Basin, Venezuela. The Rosario
oil field (white box) was discovered in 1954, with production from fractured Cretaceous carbonates and Eocene fluvial clastic reservoirs (Molina, 1992). The La Luna Quarry is highlighted in
red.
primary geometric elements are best imaged. Two highimpedance and continuous reflections mark the top and bottom
of the carbonate section (Figure 3A, B). The first reflection
occurs between the Colon Shale and the top of the carbonates,
and marks the mechanical transition between the stiff unit
below and the weak clastic unit above. A second strong
impedance contrast occurs at the base of the carbonate section
and the top of the underlying Rio Negro clastic section. These
Figure 2: Generalized stratigraphy of the western Maracaibo Basin. Formation tops in

depth (meters below a 33m KB) and interval velocities used for depth conversion posted from the CR-12 well. Qualitative mechanical stratigraphy and the location of inferred
detachments is also depicted.
reflections bound a total carbonate section that is about 547 m

thick in the CR-12 well (Figure 3C). The Tertiary section consists
of alternating sands, silts, and shales and exhibits parallel folding. The Cretaceous Colon Shale normally has a thickness of
about 550 m, except when structurally thickened where faults
emerge from the underlying Cretaceous carbonate package
(Figure 3).
71
2-5: Rosario Field
The Rosario Fault exhibits a flat-ramp-flat geometry at the crest

(Figure 3AC). La Luna and portions of Rio Negro strata are truncated and displaced onto a footwall flat near the base of the Colon
Shale. Near the crest, the forelimb dips are slightly greater than
those on the backlimb, defining a weak asymmetry toward the foreland (Figures 3, 4). The exact positions of the La Luna and Rio Negro
footwall cutoffs are not well-imaged and are obscured by velocity
pull-up beneath the hanging-wall carbonates (dashed line in footwall in Figure 3). However, we estimate that apparent displacement
onto the upper flat is a maximum of 2.4 km in the plane of this section (Figure 3B), or approximately 2.0 km if projected into the transport plane (see transport direction in Figure 4E).
Deformation interpreted at Rosario occurred during a middleMiocene and younger Andean Orogeny (Roure et al., 1997). Based
on present-day topographic relief, the structure remained active
into the Pleistocene and recent.
Figure 3: 2-D time-migrated seismic lines over the Rosario structure (see Figure 4 for location). Seismic lines are about 1:1 in the vicinity of the Cretaceous section.
(A) uninterpreted line CCT-90c-14. Tie-line locations are labeled in gray. (B) interpreted line CCT-90c-14. Formation tops are labeled on the right; the approximate
middle-Miocene surface is dashed. RF = Rosario Fault.; REF = Rosario East Fault. (C) line CAT-85-1. (continued on the next page).
72
2-5: Rosario Field

Other regional seismic data in the vicinity of
Rosario suggest that shortening of the Tertiary section is not transferred to the foreland.
Instead, we interpret a wedge structure that
transfers displacement back towards the hinterland (Figure 3AD), similar to structures
seen in nearby outcrops at La Luna quarry
(Figure 5).
South of line CCT-90c-14 (Figure 3A, B), significant differences in the geometry of the
Rosario structure exist relative to the crest.
Over a distance of 4 km, the fold loses a welldeveloped backlimb and a hanging-wall ramp
on footwall flat (compare Figure 3D, E). The
Rosario Fault also changes from a flat-rampflat geometry to simply a ramp (Figure 4E). A
lower flat may accommodate the shortening
observed near the ramp, but there is no
direct evidence for it based on fold shape.
Apparent offset of the La Luna Formation
decreases from about 2 km at the crest
(Figure 3A, B), to 1.5 km (Figure 3C), to 1 km
(Figure 3D), to about 100 m near the termination (Figure 3E). This loss of displacement is
primarily accommodated by transfer to the
Rosario East Fault, which gains displacement
to the south. This is evident from the top La
Luna structure map as two discrete en echelon anticlines separated by the Rosario Fault
(two dashed lines in Figure 4A, B). Where the
Colon Shale dampens the displacement
transfer between the two faults, the relay
between the two folds becomes less evident
in the shallower Tertiary section, and is only
reflected as a subtle change in fold axis trend
above the transfer zone (single dashed line in
Figure 4C, D). In addition, dip magnitude near
the crest is less on the Colon Shale reflector
compared to the top La Luna (Figure 4).
Figure 3 (continued): (D) CAT-85-2. (E) CAT-85-3. (F) CAT-85-4. (G) CAT-85-5. The top of La Luna (blue) is mapped in Figure 4A. The top of Colon Shale (green) is mapped in Figure 4C. See
Figure 4 for location.
73
2-5: Rosario Field
Figure 4: (A) Top La Luna Formation sub-sea depth structure (blue reflector in Figure 3). Solid red lines represent the position of seismic lines published in this section of this volume. Other lines are published in Apotria and Wilkerson (2002). Dashed lines mark fold hinges for Rosario and
Rosario East. Contour depths range from -4925 m (blue) to -4025 m (red) with a contour interval of 50 m. (B) Top La Luna dip magnitude map with superposed structure contours. Dip is a maximum of 22 (red) and a minimum of 0 (blue). (C) Top Colon Shale sub-sea depth structure map (green
reflector in Figure 3). Dashed line represents a single fold axis for both Rosario and Rosario East. Contour interval is 50 m. (D) Top Colon Shale dip magnitude map with a maximum of 18 (red) and a minimum of 0 (blue) with superposed structure contours. (E) Sub-sea depth structure-contour
map of the Rosario Fault. Contour interval is 100 m. Red arrow indicates the assumed regional transport direction perpendicular to the Perija Mountain Front (Figure 1). Dashed lines represent boundaries between the ramp and the two flats. The flats die out to the south, with only a ramp near the
termination. The Rosario Fault also changes attitude toward the north, defining an oblique ramp. The oblique ramp is associated with fold closure to the north, but does not appear to directly influence the fold termination to the south.
The present-day geometry at the crest of the Rosario structure has the essential characteristics
of a fault-bend fold (Figure 3AC). However, the lateral variation in fold and fault geometry suggests that a flat-ramp-flat is not present near the termination, and may have been absent during
the structures early development. Eisenstadt and DePaor (1987) proposed a 2-D model for fault
growth in which a fault ramp initially nucleates in the stiff layer with associated tip strains
accommodated by folding. As shortening accrues, the ramp grows up and down section, eventually linking with upper and lower stratigraphically-controlled flats. In the kinematic model that follows, we extend Eisenstadt and DePaors (1987) 2-D model to 3-D, and assert that spatial variation
in geometry is also a proxy for temporal variation.
74
2-5: Rosario Field

Kinematic Model of the Rosario Structure
Figure 5: Outcrop analog from the La Luna quarry (see Figure 1 for location). The lower massive unit is the Maraca Member of the
Cogollo Group carbonates, which is overlain by the thin-bedded, La Luna Formation. The deformation style that occurs at outcrop scale
where the fault emerges from the Maraca is similar to that seen at seismic scale where faults emerge from the stiff carbonate section
into the weak Colon Shale (Figure 3). This style of deformation at the tip of an emerging thrust fault could account for some of the
apparent thickening in the Colon Shale seen on seismic sections near the ramp upper-flat transition.
Assuming that the spatial variation in the fault-fold geometry

also represents the temporal variation of the folds development, we suggest the following kinematic model for the Rosario
structure. Each interpreted fold growth stage is consistent with
observed geometry from tip to crest.
Stage 1 (pre-middle-Miocene, Figure 6A). Cretaceous and
younger strata are essentially undeformed. Regional uplift and
erosion occurred within the western Maracaibo Basin in the
Eocene, but no local fold developed at Rosario during this time.
Figure 6: Model for the 3-D development of the Rosario structure. Each profile represents stages in both the temporal and spatial evolution of the
structure from (A) earliest/least displacement to (D) latest/most displacement. See explanation in text below.
Stage 2 (middle-Miocene, Figure 6B). Shortening of the section

initiates with small reverse offset near the top of the Cretaceous
carbonates. Folding of the Colon Shale occurs with fault propagation through the stiff carbonate interval. Sub-seismic scale
deformation of the Tertiary section is manifested by layer-parallel shortening. No evidence for a backlimb is observed. This
line resembles Figure 3F and 3G observed near the present-day
southern termination.
Stage 3 (Figure 6C). The fault ramp links with an upper detachment in the Colon Shale with potential structural thickening
near the upper flat (analogous to Figure 5). Increased displace-
ment places the hanging-wall ramp onto the upper flat, and the
forelimb begins to steepen. This is supported by the decrease in
forelimb dip toward the present-day termination (Figure 4B, D).
Stage 4 (Figure 6D). As displacement accrues, the Rosario Fault
continues to propagate downward and eventually connects to
the basal flat within the Rio Negro or La Quinta Formations. This
produces a discrete backlimb-lower flat transition that is
observed at the present-day fold crest (e.g., Figure 3AD). When
both upper and lower flats are operative, additional fault displacement is accommodated by fault-bend folding.
75
2-5: Rosario Field

The 3-D interpretation of the Rosario structure highlights the importance of distinguishing fault-bend fold geometry
from fault-bend fold kinematics. At the crest, the Rosario structure exhibits characteristics of a fault-bend fold (e.g.,
a lower and upper detachment, intervening ramp, and a hanging-wall ramp on footwall flat geometry). However, the
diagnostic geometric elements of a single profile do not uniquely establish the kinematic development. The Suppe
(1983) fault-bend fold model assumes flexural slip as the deformation mechanism, and results in passive folding
above a pre-existing fault. The prescribed kinematic model results in fold geometry that is a function of the underlying fault geometry, and a forelimb dip that remains constant with slip. Given the assumptions (Suppe, 1983), one
can predict the orientation of one element (e.g., the ramp dip) given two other elements (e.g., forelimb dip and the
axial angles).
We measured the same geometric elements near the crest of the Rosario structure on seismic line CAT-85-1 (Figure
7) and compared them to theory (Suppe 1983). The forelimb dip () is 22, consistent with the dip map on the top of
the La Luna (Figure 4B). The axial angle () is more difficult to determine due to smooth, parallel folding, but our estimate is 80. Using these measurements, the Suppe (1983) model predicts a ramp step-up angle () of 17, which is
our observation on CAT-85-1, if backlimb dip is used as a proxy for the ramp dip. The natural example matches the
Suppe (1983) model prediction of the geometry of a single profile. However, our observations of the structure in 3-D
suggest the kinematics of the Rosario structure are different than in the Suppe (1983) model.
Our observations are consistent with the model in Figure 6, in which the Rosario structure evolved from a faultpropagation fold into a fault-bend fold (geometric rather than kinematic description). We also note that the forelimb dip decreases along strike (Figure 4B), further supporting a hybridized model. Although the Rosario crest has
present-day geometry consistent with a simple fault-bend fold, the kinematics are more complicated than a single 2D profile would suggest. Preservation of growth strata, poorly defined in this study area, would be of further use to
constrain the kinematic development of the fold.
Conclusions
Figure 7: (A) Seismic line CAT-85-1 (Figure 3C) with the addition of interpreted dip domain
boundaries (red). (B) Angular measures of fold geometry where = axial angle, = forelimb dip,
= ramp dip. The geometric elements of this single profile are consistent with the Suppe (1983)
fault-bend fold model. However, based on interpretation of the structure in 3-D, the inferred kinematic development is different. Instead, the structure develops from a fault-propagation fold (active
fold above a buried fault tip) into a fault-bend fold (passive fold above an existing fault) as slip
increases (Figure 6).
The southern termination of the Rosario structure likely formed due to an along-strike decrease in displacement.
Key elements of the interpretation include: a) the fault geometry changes from flat-ramp-flat at the crest to a fault
ramp near the southern tip of the structure, b) forelimb dip decreases toward the southern termination, and c) the
backlimb is indistinct toward the southern termination.
These observations suggest kinematics in which the structure initially developed as a simple fault ramp in the
stiff layer (fault-propagation fold stage) and later propagated to connect with upper and lower detachments
(fault-bend fold stage). Our model is a 3-D extension of a 2-D model proposed by Eisenstadt and DePaor (1987) in
which fault ramps nucleate in stiff units.
Rosario provides a natural example of a structure where spatial differences may reflect temporal stages in the evolution of a fault-related fold. The model departs from previous models of rigid self-similarity and permits variations
in fold style and deformation mechanisms influenced by mechanical stratigraphy.
Acknowledgments
Permission to reproduce the seismic data was provided by Elsevier Press and The Journal of Structural Geology. We
also thank ExxonMobil Exploration Company, ExxonMobil Upstream Research Company, and PDVSA (Venezuela) for
permission to publish.
76
2-6: Medina Anticline, Eastern Cordillera, Colombia

Mark G. Rowan, Rowan Consulting, Inc., Boulder, Colorado, U.S.A.
Roberto Linares, Ecopetrol, Instituto Colombiano del Petroleo, Piedecuesta, Santander, Colombia
Location: Llanos foothills, Eastern Cordillera, Colombia
Topics: Fault-bend fold, axial-trace map, fold-evolution matrices
Reserves: Giant fields along trend (e.g., Cusiana, Cupiagua)
The Medina Anticline is located in the Llanos Foothills province along the border of the Eastern Cordillera, Colombia, approximately 100 km southwest of the giant fields of Cusiana and Cupiagua (Figure 1). It is interpreted as a simple fault-bend fold
because of its symmetrical shape, kink-band geometry, and horizontal crestal domain (Figure 2). Shallow structural levels are well
imaged, but the deep geometry and the detachment level and trajectory of the underlying fault are unknown. In order to address
these issues, we use a grid of time-migrated, 2-D seismic data to generate an axial-trace map (Shaw et al., 1994) of the anticline.
We then generate fold-evolution matrices and models, which illustrate the effects of two independent variables on fold geometry
(Rowan and Linares, 2000), to determine the factors controlling the three-dimensional geometry of the fold. This allows us to
identify active and inactive axial planes, construct the three-dimensional fault geometry, and complete the structural interpretation to depth. Axial-surface analysis shows that the three-dimensional geometry of the Medina Anticline is compatible with a faultbend fold interpretation in which displacement increases to the northeast, the ramp dip decreases to the southwest, and the
length of an intermediate flat increases to the northeast.
Figure 2: Uninterpreted 2-D time-migrated seismic profile across the Medina Anticline, the adjacent Rio Amarillo Syncline, and the frontal Aguaclara Fault (location shown on Figure 4). The fold
geometry, with symmetrical limbs, a horizontal crestal domain, and sharp hinges separating planar dip domains, suggests a fault-bend fold origin. Seismic data courtesy of Ecopetrol.
Figure 1: Map showing the location of the Medina anticline along the eastern border of
the Eastern Cordillera of Colombia, between the Quetame basement massif and the frontal
Aguaclara fault. Insert shows the location of the larger map in the northwestern corner of
South America.
77
2-6: Medina Anticline

Axial-trace maps display structure contours and
the plan-view traces of fold hinges (Wilkerson et
al., 1991; Shaw et al., 1994; Shaw and Suppe, 1994).
Models of fault-bend folds in which displacement
increases along strike produce a pattern of active
and inactive axial traces and a three-dimensional
geometry in which the crestal domain narrows
and then widens (Figure 3). Axial traces interpreted on individual seismic profiles across the
Medina Anticline (Figure 4) were projected vertically and connected to create the axial-trace map
for the fold (Figure 5). Although this map is broadly similar to the model pattern (Figure 3), there
are also significant complications. Furthermore, it
is possible to generate comparable patterns by
varying parameters other than displacement
(Rowan and Linares, 2000). Thus, further analysis
is needed to identify active and inactive axial
traces, understand the critical variables, and complete the interpretation.
Figure 3: Perspective view and axial-trace map of fault-bend fold in

which displacement increases along strike (after Shaw et al., 1994). Active
and inactive axial traces are green and red, respectively.
Figure 5: Time-structure map of the top of the Mirador Formation (contour interval is 400 msec; depth is relative
to arbitrary datum near surface). Contours are in black (tick marks point downdip), seismic lines are in grey, faults
are in red, wells are in orange, and erosional truncation is shown by the thick dashed line. The blue lines are the
axial traces at this structural level, and the arrows point in the dip direction. The Medina Anticline is bounded by
the broad Nazareth Syncline to the northwest and the tight Rio Amarillo Syncline to the southeast. The crestal
domain is most narrow at the fold culmination and plunges to the southwest and then south to where it intersects
the Aguaclara Fault where it curves west. Similarly, the backlimb curves and becomes less steep toward the
southwest and south.
Figure 4: Partial interpretation of the line shown in Figure 2. The red dashed line is the top of the upper Eocene Mirador sandstone (the main reservoir in the area),
which is constrained by nearby well control in both the hanging wall and footwall (see Figure 5). The steep grey lines are axial traces along the fold hinges separating
planar dip domains; the offset of axial traces in the Medina Anticline is caused by a minor detachment at the base of the Oligocene to lower Miocene Carbonera shales.
78

Fold-evolution matrices show the profile geometry of folds with two varying parameters and are
used to construct model axial-trace maps and corresponding perspective views (Rowan and
Linares, 2000). Figures 6, 7, and 8 show the fold-evolution matrix, axial-trace maps, and perspective views, respectively, for a model in which both displacement and ramp dip vary linearly.
Changes in ramp dip result in curved structure contours (Figures 7c, d and 8c, d) rather than the
straight contours produced by varying displacement (Figures 7a, b and 8a, b). However, this difference is distinctive only for the linear gradients used; for example, a nonlinear displacement gradient would result in curved axial traces. A more reliable criterion for distinguishing between
changing displacement and changing ramp dip is limb dip. As the ramp dip decreases, both forelimb and backlimb dips decrease (Figures 7c, d and 8c, d). Thus, parallel structure contours
(Figures 7a, b and 8a, b) indicate only changing displacement, whereas divergent structure contours (Figures 7c, d, e, f and 8c, d, e, f) show that the ramp dip is varying along strike.
Figure 7: Axial-trace maps of the six panel combinations indicated in Figure 6, in which displacement and/or ramp dip vary linearly along
strike. Black lines are structure contours, and dip symbols show the orientation of dip domains.
Figure 6: Fold evolution matrix for linear increase in displacement and linear decrease in ramp dip (28.5, 22.5, 16.5, and 10.5
degrees). (a) through (e) indicate six different combinations of four profile geometries used to construct the corresponding axialtrace maps (Figure 7) and perspective views (Figure 8).
Figure 8: Perspective views corresponding to the axial-trace maps of Figure 7, in which displacement and/or ramp dip vary linearly along
strike.
79

The presence of the Rio Amarillo Syncline between the Medina Anticline and the immediate hanging wall of the Aguaclara Fault suggests that there is a flat between the Medina ramp and the
Aguaclara ramp. Such a flat could change length along strike, so we illustrate a fold-evolution
matrix, axial-trace maps, and perspective views (Figures 9, 10, and 11, respectively) in which both
displacement and flat length vary linearly. The resulting axial-trace patterns and three-dimensional geometries are complicated by the presence and interference of new axial surfaces (C, C,
D, D) associated with the syncline and frontal ramp. The effects are best seen in the third column
of Figure 9, where displacement increases over a flat of fixed length. B migrates toward the foot
of the upper ramp, intersecting with C to form D. When B reaches the upper ramp, it becomes
fixed and C now migrates up the ramp. In the meantime, B is also migrating forward; when it reaches the foot of the upper ramp, B and B are eliminated and replaced by a new set of A and A axial
traces associated with the frontal ramp. Farther up the ramp are C, D, and an offset B (e.g., top
of second column).
Figure 10: Axial-trace maps of the six panel combinations indicated in Figure 9, in which displacement and/or flat length vary linearly along
strike. Thin black lines are structure contours, thick black lines are faults, and dip symbols show the orientation of dip domains.
Figure 9: Fold evolution matrix for linear increase in displacement and linear increase in flat length. (a) through (e) indicate six
different combinations of four profile geometries used to construct the corresponding axial-trace maps (Figure 10) and perspective views (Figure 11). Red numbers (16) indicate geometries used to construct the model axial-trace map in Figure 12; 3 is
intermediate between the middle two profiles in the top row, and 4 is intermediate between the top two profiles in the second column.
Figure 11: Perspective views corresponding to the axial-trace maps of Figure 10, in which displacement and/or flat length vary linearly
along strike.
80
Figure 12: (a) Synthetic axial-plane map constructed using geometries 16 in

Figure 9; and (b) corresponding interpretation of the Medina Anticline. In (a),
the six profile geometries from Figure 9 were spaced equally and rotated to
match the orientation and approximate the scale of the Medina Anticline. Thus,
from southwest to northeast: flat length first increases as displacement is held
constant (13), flat length then decreases as displacement increases (3, 4), flat
length again increases as displacement is held constant (4, 5), and then both flat
length and displacement increase (5, 6). The dashed line in (a) is the approximate location of the Aguaclara Fault, and the number 1 in (b) indicates the narrowest point of the crestal domain where axial traces A and B switch between
active and inactive.
To model the Medina Anticline, selected profiles from Figure 9 are joined
in map view to create the synthetic axial-trace map in Figure 12a. This
model accurately depicts most of the features of the Medina Anticline,
so that axial traces can now be identified (Figure 12b). However, the
model has a narrow backlimb and horizontal crest to the southwest
(Figure 12a), whereas the observed geometry shows a widening backlimb and dipping, curving crestal domain (Figure 12b). We infer that this
is caused by a southwestern decrease in ramp dip, as modeled in Figures
7c and 8c.
The model-constrained map interpretation is then used to complete the
interpretation. Where the crestal domain is narrowest (location 1, Figure
12b), axial traces A and B should intersect at the top of the lower ramp
(Shaw et al., 1994). The fault geometry on each profile is then determined as shown and explained in Figure 13.
Figure 13: Finished interpretation of the line shown in Figure 2. The axial-trace analysis and comparison of the observed map to the model map (Figure 12) allows the axial traces
to be identified. The level of the flat is determined by the intersection of A and B where the crestal domain is narrowest (location 1 on Figure 12b) and then correlated along strike.
The length of the flat is determined by the intersection of active axial traces B and C at the top of the lower ramp and base of the upper ramp, respectively. Note that the length of the
hanging-wall flat (B-C) approximately balances that of the footwall flat (B-C).
81

The fault geometry constructed on each profile is shown in map view in
Figure 14. Also shown are deeper normal faults visible in the southwest;
their continuation to the northeast is not imaged but is likely, and we speculate that the Medina fault-bend fold formed where the Aguaclara Fault
ramped up over an underlying basement normal fault (Figure 15). Both the
thick-skinned uplift of the Quetame basement massif and the thin-skinned
development of the Medina Anticline are interpreted to have formed during
Tertiary inversion of a Jurassic rift basin (Figure 15) (Rowan and Linares,
2000; see also Cooper et al., 1995).
Figure 15: (a) Regional 1:1 cross section through the culmination of the Median Anticline showing its relationship to the inverted Quetame basement massif; and (b)
Schematic reconstruction (not to scale) showing the infilled rift geometry at the end of the Cretaceous. Aguaclara fault is shown as an out-of-the-syncline thrust, but it
could also be rooted in basement. Tan = prerift basement; blue = Jurassic synrift; green = Lower Cretaceous; orange = Upper Cretaceous; yellow = Tertiary/Quaternary.
Conclusions:
Figure 14: Map of the fault geometry underlying the Medina Anticline as constructed using the axial-surface analysis. Most of the fault consists of a lower ramp, an intermediate flat that widens to the northeast, and an upper ramp.
To the southwest, the fault curves westward, forming an oblique ramp and thus a lower ramp angle. This is apparently
in response to curving traces of deeper, rift-related normal faults that offset prerift basement (blue). Contour interval is
400 msec; depth is relative to an arbitrary datum near surface.
The Medina Anticline is a fault-bend fold, probably formed as the Aguaclara Fault ramped up over a
basement normal fault during Tertiary inversion of a Jurassic rift basin.
The three-dimensional geometry is controlled by: (1) An increase in displacement to the northeast;
(2) An increase in flat length to the northeast; and (3) A decrease in ramp dip to the southwest.
Axial-surface analysis is a useful tool for constraining subsurface geometry where axial traces are easily
defined, but must be used in conjunction with other data/techniques to avoid model-driven interpretations.
82
2-7: Three-dimensional interpretation of the El Furrial Trend,

Eastern Venezuela Basin, Venezuela
Miguel Morales, PDVSA, EPM, Venezuela.
Enrique Hung, PDVSA, EPM, Venezuela.
Richard Bischke, Subsurface Consultants & Associates, LLC.,
Houston, Texas, U.S.A.
Location: Eastern Venezuela Basin, Venezuela
Topic: Fault-bend fold folding
Reserves: 11,100 MMBO (in place)
The super giant El Furrial field is a fault-related anticline located in the
Eastern Venezuela Basin. The field was discovered in 1986, based on
good quality 2-D seismic data. The El Furrial trend continues to the west
as a series of fault-related structures that make up the Serrania del
Interior southeast-verging fold and thrust belt (Aymard et al., 1990). The
El Furrial trend defines the frontal edge of this fold and thrust belt. The
stratigraphy of the fold belt consists of a 3- to 5-km thick Cretaceous to
Paleogene passive margin section and a 0- to 8-km thick sequence of
Neogene to recent syntectonic and post compressional foredeep fill
deposits. The large Pirital fault overthrusts the westernmost structures,
repeating 5000 m (16,000 ft) of Cretaceous section. Fault surface mapping
and structural interpretations indicate that the major faults and their
associated anticlines form a linked en echelon system related to dextral
transpression south of the El Pilar right lateral strike-slip fault system.
Figure 2: Depth-corrected profile.
El Furrial is the easternmost of three major structures (El Furrial, Carito, and Tejero, from east to west) that form the
North Monagas fields in the Serrania del Interior fold and thrust belt (Figure 1). The trend has 11 billion bbl of oil in
place and presently produces 400,000 bbl/day. The structures trend northeast-southwest across northeastern
Venezuela, and are offset in a dextral en echelon relationship to each other (Figure 3). These offsets are caused by
northwest trending lateral ramps in the underlying major thrust faults (Bischke et al., 1997). These structures are the
result of mid to late Miocene dextral transpressional displacements south of the El Pilar strike-slip fault (Figure 1).
In the northern part of the South American Plate, the transpressional displacements produced a series of northnorthwest-trending dextral tear faults and lateral ramps that turn to the east-northeast to become ramp and flat
thrust faults (Figure 2). Maps constructed of the fault surfaces indicate that many of the faults interconnect to form
a linked fault system (Boyer and Elliott, 1982). Figures 4 and 5 describe these general relationships. In Figure 4, the
Tejero ramp branches off the Urica Fault trend, and the offset Carito ramp creates another lateral ramp that trends
subparallel to the Urica Trend. In turn, the Carito ramp is offset from the Furrial ramp by another lateral ramp.
Figure 1: Simplified regional map showing the main structural elements of the Serrania del Interior fold and
thrust belt. See Figure 2 for a depth-corrected profile.
83
2-7: 3-D El Furrial Trend

The three ramp systems link to each other and to the Urica Fault trend along a lower fault flat (Figure 4).
Displacement of the hanging wall over the three ramps creates the three offset folds, which form the structural
traps for the fields. Based on interpretation of high quality 3-D seismic data (samples of which are shown on the
following pages), we interpret that these structures developed mainly as fault-bend folds (Suppe, 1983, 1985).
Figure 3: Simplified depth map of the El Furrial trend showing offset fields.
The El Furrial trend is overlain by the Pirital thrust, one of the largest faults in the regional system. The Pirital
thrust dips to the north over a horizontal distance of 20 km (Figure 6, sp 100 to 600 between 3 to 10 s). In the west,
the Pirital branches off the northwest-southeast trending Urica lateral ramp system, forming the western flank of
the Serrania del Interior fold and thrust belt (Figure 1) (Bischke et al., 1997). The Pirital fault overthrusts the
Oligocene Naricual reservoir unit, repeating about 500 m (16,000 ft) of the Cretaceous San Juan Formation (Figure
6). The main reservoir unit in the area is the Oligocene Naricual Formation, which contains fluvial deltaic to shallow marine sands (Prieto et al., 1990). The Naricual sands are approximately 500 m (1700 ft) thick (Figure 6), and
can contain 250 m (800 ft) of net pay. This northeastward prograding sequence of sands is contemporaneous with
the trailing shelf margin of the South American Plate. Later overthrusting loaded and down warped the plate forming a foredeep basin and most likely an outer rise, similar to the outer rise and gravity high observed seaward of
oceanic trenches (Watts and Talwani, 1974). Seaward of the trenches normal faults tend to occur on the
upwarped highs, which extend due to flexure. The Naricual Formation contains many normal faults that may have
originated in a similar fashion when the overthrust sheets of the Serrania del Interior advanced toward the south,
loading and flexing the South American Plate.
Figure 4: Block diagram illustrating a linked ramp-flat and lateral ramp system.
Figure 6: Regional cross section and stratigraphic column showing the main tectonostratigraphic elements from the Caribbean plate to the Orinoco tar belt (modified from
PDVSA Report).
Figure 5: Block diagram showing the hanging wall above the El Furrial, Carito, and Tejero ramps forming three
offset fault-bend folds.
84

Seismic Overview
Here we present seismic profiles from a 3-D survey that
define the geometry of the El Furrial trend. The profiles are
migrated and displayed in time (Figures 7, 8) and depth
(Figures 9, 10). Figure 7 is an uninterpreted dip section (A)
that trends northwest-southeast across the structure. On dip
line A, near the trace of strike section B, there is a panel of
reflections that dips to the southeast (between 3 and 4.3 s)
that defines the forelimb of the El Furrial structure. This
south dipping panel overlies a prominent horizontal reflector at about 4.3 s. We interpret that this horizontal reflector
is a fault-plane reflection originating from the upper flat
(detachment) of a ramp-flat system. The fault is located at
the downward termination or discontinuities in the dip panel
(Dahlstrom, 1969; Tearpock and Bischke, 2002; see section
1A-2, this volume). The horizontal reflector can be followed
to the north where it joins a group of north-dipping reflections. We interpret these north-dipping reflections to represent the backlimb of a fold, which is thrust to the southeast
above the frontal ramp (Suppe, 1983, 1985).
Figure 7: Section A Seismic time profile images dip panels forming a south-verging anticlinal fault-bend fold. Intersection with section B is shown in black line.
Arrows highlight fault position.
Figure 8 is a time section along the strike of the El Furrial

structure. Note that at about 4.3 s a near-horizontal reflector
extends across the strike profile. This feature corresponds
with the fault-plane reflection described in dip section A.
Above the fault, a panel of reflections that dips to the east
represents the folded hanging wall of the El Furrial structure.
The nearly horizontal reflections below the thrust correspond to the relatively undeformed footwall. Figure 8 images
a strike or lateral ramp (Tearpock and Bischke, 2002), or
more precisely the inverted portion of the lateral ramp that
is thrust up a frontal ramp and onto an upper flat.
Figure 8: Section B Strike seismic profile in time showing dip panels formed above the main detachment surface.
85

Structural Interpretation
In this section, we present interpreted depth profiles
(Figures 9 and 10). The high impedance package above 5 km
represents the Oligocene Naricual sands (orange horizon),
and the horizontal reflection just above 6 km is the upper
flat of the thrust fault. In section A (Figure 10), the fold contains a flat crest separating a narrow, southeast-dipping
forelimb and a wide, northwest-dipping back limb. Based
on the fold and fault geometry, the structure appears to be
a fault-bend fold (Suppe, 1983, 1985; Novoa et al., section 24, this volume).
The El Furrial thrust fault repeats a minimum of 2.0 km of
section and suggests at least 50% shortening ( 4 km)
(Figure 10). We can define only a minimum estimate of slip
on the El Furrial fault because the backlimb of the structure extends beyond the three-dimensional data set.
Naricual equivalent sands produce to the south of the
trend. Our interpretation suggests that the Naricual sands
project beneath the El Furrial structure at about the 7.0- to
8.0-km level.
Figure 9: Interpreted strike line B.
In summary, the El Furrial anticline is a well-defined example of fault-bend fold, similar to structures initially
described in the Appalachian Mountains, U.S.A. (Rich,
1934) and the Canadian Rockies (Bally et al., 1966). This
fold style is common in other parts of South America (e.g.
Dengo and Covey, 1993) and across Venezuela. Thus, faultrelated folding techniques serve as powerful tools for
describing many of the hydrocarbon-producing structures
in these regions.
Conclusions
The super giant El Furrial trend is formed by three offset fault-bend folds.
The folds are related to a linked dextral en echelon
ramp-flat and lateral ramp system.
Shortening is estimated at 50%.
Figure 10: Area-balanced interpreted of dip line A.
86
2-8: Shear fault-bend fold, Deep-Water Niger Delta

Freddy Corredor, Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S.A.
John Suppe, Department of Geosciences, Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey, U.S.A.
Location: Niger Delta, West Africa, Nigeria
Topics: Shear fault-bend folding, growth sedimentation
Using fold shapes, fault plane reflections, and patterns of growth

sedimentation, we model a fault-related fold in the deep-water
Niger Delta using shear fault-related folding theory. The Niger
Delta offers a unique opportunity to study fault-related folds, as
the structures are well imaged at deep levels in seismic reflection
profiles and because they preserve growth strata that record fold
kinematics. Individual fault-related folds are characterized by long
planar backlimbs with increasingly shallower dips to growth strata, suggesting a component of progressive limb rotation.
Forelimbs are short compared to backlimbs, but growth strata
show more consistent dips that suggests a component of folding
by kink-band migration. Combined mechanisms of kink-band
migration and limb rotation are thus invoked to model the kinematics of this fault-realted fold.
Figure 1: Uninterpreted, migrated, and depth-converted 2-D seismic profile through a fault-related fold in the deep-water Niger Delta. We observed three basic structural patterns that are consistent with pure shear fault-bend folding kinematics: First, a long planar backlimb that dips less than the fault ramp
with increasing shallower dips of growth strata, second, a short forelimb compared to the backlimb, and third, a synclinal axial surface that does not bysect the syncline. Seismic data courtesy of MABON LTD.
87
2-8: Shear fault-bend fold, Niger Delta

The Niger Delta is situated in the Gulf of Guinea (Figure 2) on the margin of West Africa. Sourced by the Niger River, it is one of the largest
regressive deltas in the world with an area of roughly 300,000 km2, a
sediment volume of 500,000 km3, and a sediment thickness of more
than 10 km in the basin depocenter. The northern delta boundary is the
Benin flank, an east-trending hinge line south of the West Africa basement massif. Cretaceous outcrops on the Abakaliki Fold Belt define the
northeastern delta boundary. The offshore boundary of the delta is
defined by the Cameroon volcanic line to the east, the border of the
Dahomey basin to the west, and the 4000 m bathymetric contour. From
the Eocene to the present, the delta has prograded southwestward into
the Gulf of Guinea. The Niger Delta basin consists of Cretaceous
through recent marine clastic strata that overlie oceanic and fragments
of continental crust. The compressional fault-related fold structures in
the deep-water Niger Delta are the product of contraction due to gravity-driven extension on the shelf.
Figure 3: 2-D seismic section through the fault-related fold interpreted in this contribution showing some important characteristics including (1) sea floor reflection, (2)
top of oceanic crust reflector, and thrust fault plane seismic reflection indicated by red arrows. Notice how the backlimb dips much less than the fault ramp. See text for
detail of (3) and (4).
The stratigraphic sequences imaged in the seismic profile shown above (Figure 3) correspond to Tertiary deepmarine and deltaic sediments. At the bottom of this sequence, the Akata Formation, which can be observed above
the Top of oceanic crust reflection (2), is up to 3000 m thick in this portion of the delta, and is composed of thick
deep marine shale sequences (potential source rocks), and may contain some interbedded turbidite sands (potential reservoirs in deep water environments). On seismic sections, the Akata Formation is generally devoid of internal reflections (3), and exhibits low P-wave velocities that produce a pull-down velocity effect in time sections, and
may indicate regional fluid overpressures. This Formation corresponds to the weak decollement layer that undergoes an externally imposed shear deformation in this fault-related fold. We use shear fault-bend fold kinematics (section 1B-4, this volume) to interpret this structure. Shear fault-bend folds are characterized by long planar backlimbs
that dip less, or much less than the fault ramp, as observed in Figure 3 (4), and shows increasingly shallower dips
to growth strata suggesting a component of folding by limb rotation. A fault plane reflection is clearly observed (red
arrows) that constrains the fault geometry and its planar nature. The fault ramp dips at an angle of 26. The long planar backlimb dips at an angle of 7.5, which is much less than the dip of the fault. Also notice that, unlike conventional fault-bend folds, the length of the backlimb does not represent the amount of slip along the fault, and that is
represented by the distance between the green dots. This difference between the fault displacement and backlimb
length is due to the combined limb rotation and kink-band migration folding mechanisms that occur in shear faultbend folding kinematics. Two end-member interpretations are possible: Simple shear and pure shear fault-bend folding. We will discuss the main structural and stratigraphic features to distinguish between these two end members.
Figure 2: High-resolution shaded relief and seafloor bathymetry image of the Niger Delta showing the approximate location of the seismic line used in this study (1).
88

This fault-related fold can be modelled using the pure shear or simple shear fault-bend folding kinematics (section 1B-4,
this volume), (Figures 4 and 5). In simple shear fault-bend folding a weak decollement layer of finite thickness (The Akata
Formation) at the base of fault ramps undergoes an externally imposed bedding-parallel simple shear with no basal fault.
In pure shear fault-bend folding the deformation of a weak decollement layer of finite thickness is locally confined to the
rock volume in the inmediate vicinity of the fault ramp where stresses are high. The basal decollement layer slides above
a basal fault and shortens and thickens above the ramp with no externally applied bed parallel simple shear. The slip
along the basal detachment decreases to zero at the bottom of the fault ramp. The total slip, then, is accomodated by slip
along the fault ramp, and by thickening of the weak decollement layer. In simple shear fault-bend fold kinematics the synclinal axial surface at the bottom of the fault ramp bysects the syncline, while in the pure shear fault-bend fold kinematics this synclinal axial surface is not the angle bisector of the syncline.
axial surfaces
axial surfaces
Figure 4: Two kinematic models of simple and pure shear fault-bend folds constructed using the end member theory graphs of Figure 5. A) Simple kinematic model of a pure shear fault-bend fold
showing downward propagation of shear with the resulting patterns of growth strata, where the slip rates along the fault ramp are equal to the rates of growth sedimentation. The distance between the
bottom of the growth axial surface and the synclinal axial surface at the top of the pre-growth sequence is equal to the maximun slip along the basal fault. B) Simple kinematic model of a simple shear
fault-bend fold with patterns of growth strata, where the slip rates along the fault ramp are equal to the rates of growth sedimentation. The final geometry of the fault-related fold is the same in both
models. Pure shear fault-bend folding kinematics require a shallower detachment level compared to the calculated detachment using simple shear fault-bend folding.
Figure 5: A) Pure shear fault-bend folding end member theory graph (section 1B-4, this volume)
showing the relationship between ramp dip, back dip, and dip of the syncline axial surface within the
weak decollement layer. The yellow square in the graph corresponds to the fault-related fold interpreted in this contribution. B) Simple shear fault-bend folding end member theory graph (section
1B-4, this volume). The yellow squares in the graphs correspond to the fault-related fold interpreted
using the backlimb and cut-off angles interpreted in this section (2-8).
89
Figure 6: Simple shear fault-bend fold interpretation of the migrated 2-D seismic profile in the deep-water Niger Delta. A shear profile is included that
shows the deformation of a line originally perpendicular to bedding before deformation. This profile shows how the shear decreases upwards. The shear is
concentrated between the bottom of the fault ramp and the yellow horizon. An overall simple shear (e) of 40 is interpreted in the lower 1000 m that terminates in the top of the kink-band (a-b), which agrees with the value predicted via theory from the back-limb dip (b) of 7.5 for kink-band (a-b) and a
fault dip () of 26. A simple shear (e) of 15 is interpreted in the next 500 m that terminates at the fault in kink-band b-c, which agrees well with a
shear predicted via theory from the back-limb dip (b) of 6 for kink-band (b-c) and a fault dip () of 26. Notice that fault slip decreases from a maximum
at the top of the ramp to zero at the base of the ramp. Shallow growth strata over the backlimb suggests limb rotation. The synclinal axial surface in this
case was interpreted at the point of maximum curvature between the synclinal dip domains. It bisects the syncline across the weak decollement layer. A
lower detachment is interpreted at 6500 m depth where the synclinal axial surface intercepts the bottom of the fault ramp. Notice how the length of the
backlimb does not reflect the amount of slip along the fault as predicted by conventional fault-bend fold theory. The forelimb is interpreted using multibend fault-bend folding theory. The growth strata onlap the forelimb according to the theory when the rate of growth sedimentation is lower than the rate
of structural growth. The gentle dips of the growth strata could be the result of differential compaction and drape.
Simple Shear Fault-bend Fold
90
Figure 7: Pure shear fault-bend fold interpretation of the migrated 2-D seismic profile in the deep-water Niger Delta. A shear profile is included that
shows the deformation of a line originally perpendicular to bedding before deformation. This profile also shows how the shear decreases upwards. The
shear is concentrated between the bottom of the fault ramp and the yellow and green horizons. An overall pure shear (e) of 60 is observed in the lower
700 m that terminates in the top of the kink-band (a-b), which agrees well with the value predicted via theory from the back-limb dip (b) of 7.5 for kinkband (a-b) and a fault dip () of 26. An additional pure shear is observed in the next 500 m that terminates at the fault in kink-band (b-c), which produces
a back-limb dip (b) of 6.0 for kink-band (b-c). Notice that fault slip goes to zero at the base of the ramp. A much higher detachment is interpreted in this
case at 5700 m depth where the synclinal axial surface also intercepts the bottom of the fault ramp. Notice how the length of the backlimb does not reflect
the amount of slip along the fault as predicted by conventional fault-bend fold theory, and requires less slip than the simple shear case. The synclinal axial
surface in this case was interpreted at the location of maximum change in dip domain. It does not bisect the syncline across the weak decollement layer.
The synclinal back angle () is 23.5, which agrees well with the value predicted via theory for the observed back-limb dip and ramp angles, and the calculated shear angle.
Pure Shear Fault-bend Fold
91
Figure 8: Close-up view of the forelimb. The forelimb is interpreted using multibend fault-bend folding theory. The growth strata onlap the forelimb as predicted by the model when slip rates are greater than growth sedimentation rates. The gentle dips are probably produced by differential
compaction and drape.
Conclusions:
A pure shear fault-bend fold is described in the outer fold
belt of the deep-water Niger Delta where the weak decollement layer corresponds to the deep marine Tertiary Akata
Formation.
The pure shear fault-bend fold described in this section (28) is characterized by a long planar backlimb with increasingly shallower dips to growth strata, a short forelimb compared to the backlimb with onlapping growth strata, and a
synclinal axial surface that does not bisect the syncline due
Figure 9: Close-up view of the syncline showing the interpreted picks of the synclinal axial surface across different stratigaphic levels (green
dots). The synclinal axial surface, in this interpretation, does not bisect the syncline. Thickening along the decollement layer (Akata Formation)
can be observed above the fault ramp, on the left flank of the syncline. These two observations suggest a pure shear fault-bend fold.
to the thickening of the weak decollement layer across the

axial surface.
The forelimb is interpreted using the multibend fault-bend
folding theory.
The length of the backlimb does not reflect the amount of
slip along the fault ramp.
The patterns of growth sedimentation suggest increasing
limb rotation by progressive increase of shear along the
backlimb.
Rates of syntectonic growth sedimentation are lower than
rates of uplift along the fault ramp during initial stages of

fold growth producing onlap over the forelimb, and are
increased later such that no bathymetric relief develops.
The main feature that allows differentiation between single
and pure shear fault-bend folds in seismic sections is the
synclinal axial surface. This axial surface is an angle bisector in simple shear fault-bend folds, but not in pure shear
fault-bend folds due to the thickening of the weak decollement layer across the axial surface as illustrated in the
structure interpreted in this section (2-8).
92
2-9: Basil anticline, Northern Apennines, Italy

Fabrizio Storti, Dipartimento di Scienze Geologiche, Universit degli Studi Roma Tre, Roma, Italy
Stefano Tavani, Dipartimento di Scienze Geologiche, Universit degli Studi Roma Tre, Roma, Italy
Saverio Merlini, ENI/Agip Division, San Donato Milanese, Milano, Italy
Alessandro Mosconi, ENI/Agip Division, San Donato Milanese, Milano, Italy
Francesco Salvini, Dipartimento di Scienze Geologiche, Universit degli Studi Roma Tre, Roma, Italy
Location: Northern Adriatic Sea, Italy
Topics: Fault-propagation folding, growth structure, foreland flexure
Reserves: Gas in Pliocene clastic reservoirs
Figure 1: Location of the seismic profile.
Figure 2: Post-stack, time-migrated 3-D seismic reflection profile across the Basil anticline and the Apenninic foredeep. The presence
of gas is indicated by the pull-down effect in Pliocene sediments.
Figure 3: Interpretation of the seismic profile. Basic sedimentary and tectonic features are highlighted. The lateral transitions among middle Eocene-Miocene sediments are well imaged, as well as the
outstanding Pleistocene unconformity and the overlying progradational sedimentary structures.
The Basil anticline is located at the toe of the Apennines fold and thrust belt, in the northern Adriatic Sea (Figure 1). In the regional seismic line (Figures 2, 3) the pre-, syn-, and postorogenic sedimentary architectures are well imaged, as well as two major thrust-related structures and their overlying growth section. An outstanding feature in the preorogenic succession is the transition from a
middle Eocene-Miocene carbonate platform (easternmost sector) to a basinal sequence, through a slope domain. An upper Messinian unconformity marks the onset of foreland flexure and the sedimentation of Pliocene synorogenic deposits in the sinking foredeep. A Pleistocene unconformity marks the end of the major contractional event, followed by the progressive filling of the depocenter.
93
2-9: Basil anticline

The Basil anticline provides a spectacular example of a thrust-related anticline. Almost the entire fold shape and its interactions with surface processes (syntectonic sedimentation and erosion) are very well recorded.
Deformation terminated before the occurrence of any fault breakthrough
within forelimb and this prevented any distortion induced by further forelandward translation. Upper Pliocene strata thin onto the crest of the anticline, suggesting that they are growth strata (e.g. Suppe et al., 1992).
Erosion of part of the crest and the forelimb indicates that the late Pliocene
evolution of the anticline progressed in subaerial conditions. The probable
presence of wedge geometries in the Pleistocene sediments may support a
late reactivation of the fault-fold pair. We interpret this anticline as a
growth fault-propagation fold (Figure 5). Details of the basic observations
discussed above are provided in Figure 6.
Basil anticline
Outward propagation of the sole thrust along the bottom of the synorogenic sediments.
Displacement on the upward migrating frontal ramp is accommodated by the development of the Basil fault-propagation anticline. Folding occurs in a high sedimentation environment and well developed growth wedges form on both limbs.
Flexural sinking of the foreland and deposition of synorogenic clastic sediments in a foredeep environment.
Preorogenic succession
Figure 5: Numerically modeled (HCA; Salvini et al., 2001) cartoon showing the reconstructed evolutionary steps
for this sector of the Apenninic foreland system and the interpretation of the Basil anticline as a growth fault-propagation fold.
Figure 4: Seismic image of the Basil anticline.
94
2-9: Basil anticline

The Basil anticline has a gently dipping backlimb and a steep forelimb
truncated by the thrust ramp. The shape of the anticline is well rounded in the upper part and becomes more angular in the fold core. The
two axial surfaces bounding the flay-lying crest can be traced in this
region of the fold and their downward prosecution indicates that they
merge at a point located near the upper Messinian unconformity. This
suggests that the basal decollement is located at the bottom of the
Pliocene sediments. Upper Pliocene growth wedges are well imaged in
both limbs, supporting their rotation during fold evolution (e.g. Hardy
and Poblet, 1994). In particular, the large syntectonic fan in the forelimb indicates that most of its total rotation occurred in the late
Pliocene. The occurrence of limb rotation in fault-propagation anticlines is predicted by the trishear kinematis (Erslev, 1991; Hardy and
Ford, 1997; Allmendinger, 1998). Wedge geometries can be imaged in
the lower Pleistocene sediments overlying the forelimb. They provide
a reliable evidence of a limited fold activity post-dating the early
Pleistocene erosional event. Two other sedimentary wedges are tentatively imaged in younger strata deposited on both limbs.
Conclusions:
The Basil anticline is a notheast-verging fault propagation
fold developed at the tip of a thrust ramp that soles down
into the upper Messinian unconformity.
Upper Pliocene and, possibly, lower Pleistocene strata are syntectonic units folded during fault motion.
Figure 6: Interpreted seismic image of the Basil anticline showing basic features that have been used for the reconstruction of fold kinematics.
95
2-10: Salt weld detached fault-propagation folds

Frank Bilotti, Timothy Brickner, Thomas Elliott, Chip Morgan, Richard Redhead, Yusri,
Unocal, Sugar Land, Texas, U.S.A.
Figure 2: Pre-stack time migrated seismic profile converted to
depth. This line images two contractional structures that detach
from the welded autochthonous
salt level.
Location: Deepwater Espirito Santo Basin, Brazil

Topics: Fault-propagation folding, salt welds, detachments
An early Tertiary, north-southoriented compressional event in
the Espirito Santo Basin formed a mixture of salt-weld detached
fault-propagation folds and compressed salt walls. The larger
structures preserve a combination of salt-deflation stratigraphic
geometry and contractional fold geometry.
In this example we model one of these asymmetric contractional
structures as a constant thickness fault-propagation fold. We
find that two solutions fit the data depending on where one
defines kink bands and measures the limb dips. Of the two solutions, a low-angle breakthrough solution that honors the deep
fold geometry fits the data better.
autochthonous salt water
Figure 3: Summary of sub-regional

structural history of the deepwater
Espirito Santo Basin. Horizontal welds
are less extensive in more distal parts
of the basin.
96
Figure 1: Regional map of the Espirito Santo Basin.
forelimb inactive
axial surface
Figure 4: Main kink bands defined by axial surfaces.
backlimb active
axial surface
single crestal axial surface

Figure 5: Model for a simple fault-propagation fold from a flat detachment.
Figure 6: Axial surface maps at 2 seismic depth slices. The pattern of a broadening flat crest with decreasing slip predicted by fault-propagation folding is supported by the data. The deeper slice at 6400 ms shows the intersection of the crestal axial surfaces, which is also
consistent with the fault-propagation folding model.
Discussion:
We employ a fault propagation fold model to interpret this structure based on its first-order structural geometry as an asymmetric fold with a steep or faulted forelimb. The well-defined basal
detachment and the lack of structural relief across the structure indicate that the structure soles
to a horizontal detachment.
97

Solution 1: Using shallow fold geometry
We utilize fault-propagation folding theory to provide balancing constraints for the poorly imaged core of this
structure. Seismic loop ties and bisecting axial surfaces are the basis for the geometric interpretation.
Disagreement between the model structure and the seismic image are due to either geologic complexity not
being accounted for in the model or shortcomings of the seismic image.
a. Predicted forelimb
dip based on bisecting axial surfaces
matches seismic tie,
probably a steep
fold limb.
Figure 8. Fault-propagation fold solution for the structure using the

shallow geometry as the main constraint.
b. Seismic tie is extended across structure

and bisecting axial surfaces projected downward. There is no net structural relief across
the structure so we postulate a flat basal
detachment.
c. FPF theory predicts a basal step-up angle

= 15 for = 30. Since 2 = , backlimb dips
should be equal to the basal step-up angle. In
this section the backlimb dips at 17. Using
these parameters we predict the location of
the fault.
Figure 7. Interpretation of the structure using fault-propagation fold (FPF) theory.
This balanced section works well for the shallow geometry that we
used to constrain the fault-propagation fold model; however, it does
not agree well with the bed dips in the deeper part of the structure. In
fact, the steeper bed dips at depth suggest that the model fault geometry would actually cut down section with respect to the hanging-wall
rocks. This leads us to explore another interpretation of the structure.
98

Solution 2: Using deep fold geometry
We again utilize fault-propagation folding theory to provide balancing constraints for the poorly
imaged core of this structure. In this case, however, we choose to respect the geometry of the
deeper fold. The deep fold limbs are steeper and have more inflections in dip, yielding a more complex solution. Here we invoke a low-angle breakthrough of a FPF.
kink bands
balanced model section
low-angle breakthrough
a. Defining kink bands from the deep fold geometry yields 7 dip panels. The overall geometry
still fits the FPF model; however, another detail
must be added to explain the extra kink band.
Using f=60 and 2=, constant thickness FPF
theory predicts backlimb dip b=34. This predicted dip matches the dip of the deep reflectivity of the backlimb.
Figure 10. The final fault geometry results

from the addition of the breakthrough fault as
well as folding of the existing fault in the core of
the fault-propagation fold. The shallow fold
geometry generally reflects the fold shape, but
not the exact dip angles. The disagreement can
be due to the changing thickness of strata in the
section or mechanical thickening or thinning of
beds. Because the history of salt deflation causes variation in stratigraphic thickness we propose that this fold forms in rocks with pre-existing thickness variations.
c. We postulate a low-angle fault breakthrough to explain the additional kink band.

Using the model developed in Suppe and
Medwedeff, 1991, we balance the model
using an additional kink band whose width
is the same as the amount of the breakthrough slip.
predicted fault geometry
b. Using the
FPF fold
geometry we
can predict
the firstorder fault
geometry.
Conclusions:
Figure 9. Interpretation of the structure using fault-propagation fold theory and

geometric constraints from the deeper part of the structure.
After nearly complete deflation and welding, the autochthonous salt level still provides a
sub-horizontal detachment surface for thin-skinned contractional structures
This structure fits the basic geometry and kinematics described by fault-propagation
folding theory.
Two models were tested; of these, a more complex model utilizing deep geometry as the
primary constraints provides a better fit to the data.
99
2-11: Structural inversion along the Sakala Fault,

East Java Sea, Indonesia
Shankar Mitra, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma, U.S.A.
Location: East Java Sea, Indonesia
Topics: Inversion, fault-related folding
The Sakala structure (Figure 1) is a fault-related inversion structure in the East Java Sea (Figure 2), located in a back arc setting
behind the Java trench. Along this trench, the Australian plate is subducted under the Eurasian plate, along a north-dipping subduction zone (Hamilton, 1979). Inversion structures in this area resulted from north-south extension in the Eocene and Oligocene,
followed by compression in the same general direction, in the early Miocene.
Figure 2: Generalized map of the East Java Sea, showing the location of the Sakala inversion structure, and a seismic reflection profile through the structure.
Figure 1: Time section through the Sakala structure.
100
2-11: Sakala inversion structure

In order to interpret the detailed geometry and evolution of the
structure, a pre-stack depth migrated section (Figure 3) was
used. The structure is interpreted as an inversion structure
formed along the south-dipping Sakala fault. The interval
between the Ngimbang and Prupuh Formations shows a significant increase in thickness from the footwall to the uplifted hanging wall across the fault. The thickness also increases gradually
away from the fault zone. The structural geometry of the units
closely resembles that formed by the compressive reactivation

of an extensional fault-propagation fold with fault breakthrough.
The fold geometry was used to model the fault geometry, which
is poorly imaged on the seismic sections (Figure 4a).
Figure 3: Pre-stack depth-migrated seismic profile

through the Sakala structure. a. Uninterpreted profile. b.
Shaded area represents the interval between the tops of
the Ngimbang and Prupuh Formations. Note that the
thickened section is in the uplifted block, suggesting
structural inversion.
Figure 4: a. Interpreted depth profile through

the Sakala structure. b. Restoration of the interpreted seismic profile to the pre-compressional
stage, using antithetic inclined shear. Part of
the compressional fault-propagation fold is not
restored, so that the true restored geometry of
the top of the Prupuh Formation is given by the
solid gray line. If A1=A2, the structure is area
balanced.
101
2-11: Sakala inversion structure

Forward modeling and restoration was used to decipher the
detailed evolution of the structure (Mitra, 1993). An experimental clay model (Figure 5; Mitra, 1993; Mitra and Islam, 1994)
demonstrates the development of an extensional fault-propagation (drape) fold, and the drape dip resulting from breakthrough of the fault. The experiment simulates the deformation
in pre-extensional units, modeled by a clay layer, above a basement fault dipping 45 degrees. Extension initially results in the
formation of a broad fault-propagation fold (Figure 5a). The
deformation occurs by the sequential development of a large
number of small normal faults, which are progressively rotated
to steeper dips with increasing extension. The extension even-
Top Ngimhang Formation
tually results in a major fault breaking through the clay unit at a

steeper angle than the basement fault. The fault-propagation or
drape dip is preserved in the hanging wall, and is rotated as it
passes through the synclinal hinge (Figure 5b).
In late Eocene and Oligocene time, extension resulted in the development of

a fault-propagation fold above a deep-seated planar fault dipping approximately 40 (Figure 6a and b). The fault propagated at a steeper angle (55)
through the fold in the Ngimbang and older units and subsequently through
the synextensional Prupuh Formation. The propagation of the fault through
the extensional fault propagation fold resulted in a basinward drape dip A-B
(Figure 6b). This drape panel was rotated to a shallower dip (B-C) as it passed
through the synclinal hinge. Basinward of C, units show a small dip into the
fault. The synextensional growth units deposited in the hanging wall showed
a progressive increase in thickness into the basin through the three major dip
panels.
Top Prupuh Formation
Compressive deformation in the early Miocene resulted in folding of units as

they passed through fault bends (Figure 6c). The panel B-C was folded to its
original steeper dip, and horizontal beds basinward of C were folded to the
dipping panel C-D. In addition, a tight fold developed within the synextensional units at the tip of the fault. The compressive folding in the possibly
unconsolidated synextensional sediments may have resulted in some area
loss, although the structure can be area balanced by assuming some penetrative deformation.
Figure 4b shows the restoration of the interpreted seismic profile to a postextensional stage, using the model described above. Variable inclined shear
was used to restore parts of the hanging wall deformed by fault-bend folding.
The restoration did not remove the effects of compressive fault-propagation
folding at the leading edge of the structure. The post-extensional top of the
Prupuh Formation possibly had the geometry shown by the dark gray line in
Figure 4b. The leading edge of the structure was folded to the geometry
shown by the dashed line during compressive deformation, with the area A1
= A2.
Figure 5 (above): Clay model showing the development of an extensional faultpropagation fold, and the subsequent breakthrough of a major fault. Note the development of a drape dip panel in the hanging wall.
Figure 6 (right): Evolution of the Sakala structure. a. Pre-extensional geometry. b.
Post-extensional geometry. Note the development of a drape dip due to extensional
fault propagation folding in the hanging wall. c. Final structure, resulting from compressive reactivation of the Sakala fault.
Conclusions:
The Sakala structure in the East Java Sea is interpreted to be an inversion structure formed by Miocene compressive reactivation of an Eocene-Oligocene extensional structure.
Extension along the Sakala fault resulted in an extensional fault-propagation (drape) fold with subsequent fault breakthrough, resulting in the preservation of a drape dip in the hanging wall.
Compressive reactivation along the fault occurred by fault-bend folding, accompanied by fault-propagation folding at the leading edge of the structure.
102
2-12: Detachment fold, Niger Delta

Frank Bilotti, Texaco, Bellaire, Texas, U.S.A.
Ronald M. Cupich, Texaco, Bellaire, Texas, U.S.A.
Roisin M. Lakings, Texaco, Bellaire, Texas, U.S.A.
Location: Deepwater Niger Delta
Topics: Detachment folding, growth strata, restoration
We describe a large detachment fold located between the inner and
outer fold and thrust belts of the deepwater Niger Delta (Figure 1).
Seismic lines define the structure as a broad, symmetric anticline involving Miocene and lower Pliocene deltaic strata (Figure 2). The structure
is overlain by syntectonic growth strata that show an upward fanning of
limb dips in the upper Pliocene and Pleistocene section, indicating that
the fold grew by limb rotation. A continuous, relatively flat basement
underlies the fold indicating the presence of a sub-horizontal detachment surface in the pro-delta Akata Formation. Detachment folding
requires ductile thickening of the Akata Formation above the basal
detachment in the core of the fold.
Figure 2: Migrated 2-D seismic profile through the detachment fold. We observe
two basic structural patterns in the seismic profile (top) that are consistent with
detachment folds (left): 1) symmetric, dipping fold limbs situated over flat reflectors
in the Akata Formation and basement; and 2) syntectonic growth strata with bed
dips that shallow upward toward the seafloor. These observations, and the lack of
an obvious thrust ramp beneath the fold, indicate that the structure is a detachment
fold formed primarily by limb rotation. The structure grew during the Pliocene and
Quaternary.
Figure 1: Bathymetry of the offshore Niger Delta showing the major structural belts and the location of the study area. Modified from Connors et al. (1998).
103
2-12: Niger Delta detachment fold

We present a kinematic model (Figure 3) and interpreted seismic reflection
profile (Figure 4) across the detachment fold. The kinematics of fold growth
are recorded by the geometry of syntectonic strata. In Figure 3, we compare
the growth of a model detachment fold with a restoration of the seismic
interpretation using heterogeneous inclined-shear. The restoration demonstrates that the structure grew primarily by limb-rotation, with a minor component of limb widening between restoration steps B and C.
The structure is cored by pro-delta marine sediments of the Akata Formation
(Figure 4). Detachment folds require that material in their cores deform and
thicken to accommodate fold amplification. The Akata Formation, a marine
shale and the probable hydrocarbon source rock, exhibits this increased
thickness.
Figure 4: Interpreted seismic section and geologic cross-section through the detachment structure.
Conclusions:
Figure 3: Sequential model (0-3) of a detachment fold (left) with fixed limb widths that grows by limb rotation. The
model is compared with a balanced restoration of the structure (right) derived using variable inclined-shear (Novoa et al.,
1999).
This structure is a detachment anticline that grew primarily by limb-rotation since the early Pliocene.
The basal detachment is located in the Akata Formation marine shales, which thickened in the core
of the fold during growth.
104
2-13: Mississippi Fan Fold Belt, Gulf of Mexico

Mark G. Rowan, Rowan Consulting, Inc., Boulder, Colorado, U.S.A.
Frank J. Peel, BHP Billiton Petroleum, Houston, Texas, U.S.A.
Location: Offshore Louisiana, northern Gulf of Mexico
Topics: Salt-cored detachment folds, reverse faults, growth strata
Reserves: Giant fields along trend to west (e.g., Mad Dog)
Figure 1: Map of the northern Gulf of Mexico showing the distribution of allochthonous salt (black), basinward- and landward-dipping faults (blue and red), and deepwater folds (green). Modified from Diegel et
al. (1995) and reprinted by permission of the AAPG.
Figure 2: Uninterpreted and interpreted

views of Profile A showing symmetric,
rounded, unfaulted detachment fold cored by
salt. Blue top and base of allochthonous
salt and equivalent weld (indicated by pair of
dots); purple undated horizon, possibly
Upper Jurassic; green MCU (midCretaceous unconformity), alternatively identified as top Cretaceous using new well data
(T. Dohmen, 2001, personal communication); red top Oligocene; orange intraMiocene; yellow time-transgressive
growth unconformity/onlap surface. Horizon
correlation around the plunge termination of
the fold shows that strata truncated by the
unconformity at (1) are age-equivalent to
those onlapping the surface at (2); deeper
growth strata are thinned and rotated on both
flanks (3). 3-D data courtesy of
WesternGeco; location shown on Figures 7
and 10.
The Mississippi Fan fold belt is one of several deepwater contractional provinces that formed in response
to gravitational failure of the northern Gulf of Mexico passive margin (e.g., Diegel et al., 1995; Peel et al.,
1995; Rowan et al., 2004). It comprises salt-cored detachment folds and associated reverse faults that
developed principally during the late Miocene (e.g., Weimer and Buffler, 1992; Rowan, 1997). Although all
folds were originally thought to be cored by the autochthonous Louann salt, modern data show that the
frontal folds are detached above an Upper Jurassic to Lower Cretaceous allochthonous nappe (Peel, 2001;
Rowan et al., 2001, 2004).
In this section (2-13), we examine the three-dimensional geometry of a composite frontal fold using a
series of 3-D time-migrated seismic profiles and structure maps. The profile geometry varies considerably
along strike from a relatively simple, symmetric, unfaulted detachment fold (Figures 2, 3) to an asymmetric, faulted fold that is vergent either basinward (Figures 4, 6) or landward (Figure 5). Also, an earlier
(Mesozoic) deformation phase complicates the deep geometry. Thus, no simple 2-D or 3-D structural
model adequately explains the relationship between the fold and associated faults, and geometric and/or
quantitative models are of minimal use in aiding seismic interpretation in this case.
105
2-13: Mississippi Fan fold belt
Figure 3: Uninterpreted and interpreted views of Profile B showing a rounded detachment fold with a very slight
asymmetry and a minor, high-angle reverse fault on the forelimb. Again, note the differences in growth strata between
the two limbs. Horizons as in Figure 2; location shown on Figures 7 and 10. 3-D data courtesy of WesternGeco.
Figure 4: Uninterpreted and interpreted views of Profile C showing an asymmetric detachment fold with a long, planar backlimb and a steep forelimb cut by a basinwardvergent, high-angle reverse fault zone. The early deformation stage is clearly shown by the structural thinning and thickening (4) between the top salt (blue) and the top
Oligocene (red). Horizons as in Figure 2 (dashed where approximate, dotted where uncertain); location shown on Figures 7 and 10. 3-D data courtesy of WesternGeco.
106
Figure 5: Uninterpreted and interpreted views of Profile D showing a broadly symmetric fold with a larger reverse fault on the basinward limb but a deep-level crest on the landward side. Again, note the differences in growth strata between the two limbs. Horizons as
in Figure 2 (dashed where approximate, dotted where uncertain); location shown on Figures 7 and 10. 3-D data courtesy of
WesternGeco.
Figure 6: Uninterpreted and interpreted views of Profile E showing an asymmetric fold with a long, gentle backlimb and a steeper, faulted forelimb. Again, note the differences in growth strata between the two limbs and the early deformation visible at depth on the backlimb. Horizons as
in Figure 2 (dashed where approximate, dotted where uncertain); location shown on Figures 7 and 10. 3-D data courtesy of WesternGeco. The
well was dry.
107

The three-dimensional geometry of this salt-cored fold is complex, consisting of three en-echelon segments (I, II, and
III) and a smaller segment (IV), with individual culminations separated by saddles (Figure 7). Thus, any given profile
through the fold is likely to display significantly different geometries (Figures 2-6). Furthermore, the relationship
between the fold and its associated faults is highly variable: Segments I and II each have a frontal reverse fault (linked
at prominent cusp), segment IV has a small landward-vergent fault, and segment III is unfaulted (Figures 7 and 8).
Initial growth strata are thinned and rotated on both limbs (3 on Figure 2), consistent with detachment folding with
progressive limb rotation (e.g., Hardy and Poblet, 1994). However, shallow growth geometries (backlimb truncation
at 1 and forelimb onlap at 2 in Figure 2) are similar to those modeled for fault-bend folds with synkinematic erosion
(Figure 9) (Suppe et al., 1992; Hardy and Poblet, 1995). Although the detachment (base of salt nappe) does indeed
ramp up, the studied fold is a detachment fold with no higher-level flat or wedge thrust. Thus, a growth pattern of
backlimb truncation and forelimb onlap does not necessarily define a fault-bend fold. In this case, it was generated
by a salt-cored detachment fold in which the forelimb locked up as the backlimb continued to rotate.
Figure 8: Variation of shortening along the strike of the fold, divided into faulting and folding
components. A through E are the five profiles illustrated in Figures 2 through 6, respectively.
Modified from an earlier interpretation (Rowan, 1997), with shortening values determined from
line-length restoration of fourteen equally spaced profiles. There is no direct correlation between
fault and fold geometries because faults are secondary structures that may or may not develop
and modify preexisting detachment folds.
Figure 7: Time-structure contour map of the studied fold (segments I, II, III, and IV) and more landward structures. Yellows and reds are highs, blues and purples are lows; thin
black lines are reverse faults and black blobs are salt diapirs. The three-dimensional geometry is very complex: individual fold segments may have different orientations, plunge
angles, fold-fault relationships, and diapiric influence. Grey lines show seismic profiles of Figures 2-6.
Figure 9: Modeled fault-bend fold with synkinematic erosion and sedimentation (modified
from Hardy and Poblet, 1995). The red horizon is a time-transgressive growth unconformity
(analogous to the yellow horizon in Figures 2-6), with time-equivalent strata truncated on the
backlimb (1) and onlapping the forelimb (2). The resulting growth geometry is very similar to
that observed in salt-cored detachment folds of the Mississippi Fan fold belt, which do not contain an upper detachment and a connecting ramp (compare this figure with Figure 2b). Thus,
backlimb truncation and forelimb onlap do not uniquely define a fault-bend fold, but simply
show that the two limbs behaved differently.
108

Another complicating factor is an earlier stage of deformation. Thickness variations in the section
between the top salt and the top Oligocene (e.g., 4 in Figure 4) reflect a dominantly Cretaceous tectonic event. An isochron map of an interval immediately above salt shows a complex pattern of paleohighs and paleo-lows (Figure 10). A related feature is that the suprasalt Cretaceous and Paleogene section is generally thinner than in the area basinward of salt (e.g., between the purple and red horizons
in Figure 2) because of distal salt inflation during the early history of the margin (Hall, 2000).
The variable profile geometry of this fold is thus partly due to the multi-phase deformation history
illustrated in Figure 11. Deformation began almost immediately after salt deposition due to differential
thermal subsidence and the consequent basinward tilt. This resulted in a combination of distal inflation, nappe extrusion, and folding beneath a thin overburden. The complex geometry of these structures (Figure 10) is interpreted as an interference pattern during convergent gliding off both the
Florida and Louisiana margins. The early structures then served as buckling instabilities for the later
(Neogene) deformation, but only some were reactivated because of the thicker overburden, and thus
longer wavelength, of the detachment folding.
Figure 11: Schematic evolution based on quantitative restorations and regional considerations (modified from Rowan et al., 2000):
(a) Upper Jurassic salt deposition; (b) gravity gliding caused by Cretaceous thermal subsidence and basinward tilting results in distal
inflation, nappe extrusion, and small-wavelength folds; (c) relative quiescence during the Paleogene as thermal subsidence and tilting
wane; (d) gravity spreading of the Neogene progradational margin, resulting in larger-wavelength folding; and (e) cessation of deformation as the Pleistocene deepwater Mississippi fan is deposited. Sections are not drawn to scale, and the effects of salt withdrawal
and diapirism are not shown.
Conclusions:
Figure 10: Isochron map of an interval immediately above salt showing the geometry of the early (dominantly Cretaceous) deformation. Thins corresponding to paleo-highs are in yellow and red; thicks corresponding to paleo-lows are in blue and purple. The complex pattern influenced the development of the
later (Miocene) structures, shown by the black lines with arrows, resulting in the larger wavelength, variable fold geometries observed today.
Salt-cored detachment folds in the Mississippi Fan fold belt have complex threedimensional geometries with significant variations along strike caused by variable
fold-fault relationships and the effects of an earlier deformation phase.
Patterns of growth strata are ambiguous and cannot always be used to determine the
fold style and nature of underlying faults.
In the case of salt-detached fold belts on passive margins, therefore, applying simple
geometric and quantitative models to shallow horizons in order to constrain the
deeper interpretation is often inappropriate.
109
2-14: Yakeng detachment fold, South Tianshan, China

Aurlia Hubert-Ferrari, Institut de Gologie, Universit de Neuchtel, Neuchtel, Switzerland
John Suppe, Department of Geosciences, Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey, U.S.A.
Xin Wang, Department of Geosciences, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China
Chengzao Jia, PetroChina, Beijing, China
Location: Kuche, Tarim Basin, Xinjiang, China
Topic: Analysis of a detachment fold in the thickness domain
Reserves: Exploration region
Key Point: Yakeng anticline illustrates the importance of working in
the thickness domain when interpreting detachment folds. Measurements in the thickness domain show that Yakeng has 1.2 km shortening above a basal two levels of major detachment, basal diapirism,
basement folding, and a 2.4-km-thick growth sequence.
Structural Setting: The active Yakeng anticline is topographically
expressed by deformation of the alluvium at the front of the southern
Tianshan thrust belt (Figure 1). Seismic imaging and drilling (Figure 2)
show it to be a classic detachment fold lying above a decollement in
the evaporite-rich Tertiary Jidikuh Formation, which roots northward
(below horizon 4) into the massive 200-km-long Quilitak anticline
(Figure 1). Just to the south of Yakeng anticline is the Yanan anticline,
which is a basement-involved inversion structure whose north flank
interferes with the south flank of the Yakeng anticline.
Figure 2a: Uninterpreted seismic (horizontal scale equals vertical scale, topography exaggerated x4).
Figure 2b: Interpreted seismic (horizontal scale equals vertical scale, including topography) showing the 27 horizons used in analysis of Yakeng. Two major detachments bound the thickening yellow and orange interval.
110
Figure 1: Yakeng fold at the front of the southern Tianshan. (Landsat TM)
2-14: Surface expression of fold growth and sediment trapping

Geomorphic expression: The morphology of the 50150-m-high
topographic anticline illuminates the most recent increment of fold
growth and sedimentation. It is a deformed and incised alluvial surface for which prior through-going drainage systems are still visible
(Figures 3 and 4), showing that deposition previously exceeded
uplift, similar to the present situation at Kuche where Yakeng is
largely buried (Figure 1). Limb dips (34) in the valley east of the
seismic line (Figures 1, 2b) are a significant fraction of the seismic
dips (46), indicating the extreme youth of Yakeng anticline.
Figure 5: Low
rounded morphology
of the Yakeng
anticline.
Drainage and sedimentation: The topographic anticline is a barrier to the river networks (Figures 1, 3); only regionally important
rivers can now cross Yakeng. Smaller streams previously crossed
Yakeng anticline as demonstrated by the numerous well preserved wind gaps (Figure 3) and by southward merging channel
networks that are continuous across the wind gaps (Figures 3, 4).
This implied reorganization of drainage networks is an effect of
decreasing stream power caused by decreasing stream gradients
associated with fold growth. As a result, sediment is preferentially trapped north and south of Yakeng (Figures 5, 6), producing a
topographic expression that is narrower than the anticline at
depth, especially on the north flank (Figures 2, 3, and 12).
Figure 3: The active Yakeng anticline forms a 6-km-wide rounded topographic ridge that few rivers can incise, as shown by the many wind gaps
(w). Northward tilting of the north flank of Yakeng and alluvial deposition
both decrease stream gradients, which favors the development of channels on the sides of the alluvial fans and along the northern limb of
Yakeng (1). Others channels have a converging pattern (2) which increases their stream power sufficiently to keep incising Yakeng anticline. The
increase of meander amplitude and wavelength across Yakeng also reflect
these changes in gradient.
Figure 4: Southward-converging drainage networks are interrupted by wind gaps at the crest of
Yakeng anticline. Flow is now to the north on the north flank of Yakeng. These southward converging networks formed before Yakeng anticline developed its present topographic expression. Seismic
line in black.
Figure 6: A facies change on the northern limb of Yakeng anticline is visible in the field (top) and in the seismic reflection profile (bottom). The northern edge of the anticline is mainly formed by thick dark conglomerate
(Xiyu F.) whereas its top is composed mainly of yellow-grey sandstone. Most coarse dark conglomerates began
to be deposited during the glacial period (1.8 Ma to present). They progressively filled the basin between
Quilitak and Yakeng anticlines.
111
2-14: Seismic characteristics and folding mechanism

Initial assessment: Yakeng anticline dies out downward (Figure
7), suggesting it is a classic detachment fold that can be analyzed
quantitatively for shortening and timing (Figure 8). However
Yakeng is too complex because of regional variation in stratigraphic thickness below horizon 15 (Figure 9) and interference
with Yanan anticline (Figure 7). This forces us to move our analysis of Yakeng from the depth domain to the thickness domain
(Figures 1014).
Figure 8: Classical detachment folds are characterized by a linear upward increase of area of structural relief A = hs within pregrowth strata (Epard and Groshong, 1993). By measuring the area of
structural relief of many horizons the magnitude and the timing of shortening can be determined s = A/h. Shortening can also be determined for each layer from bed-length measurements
s = L = L2 L2, but only if bed length is conserved. Yakeng anticline is significantly more complex
than this model.
Figure 7: Yakeng anticline dies out downward in height and width, indicating a basal detachment (1, horizon 4), which extends to the north under Quilitak anticline.
Yanan anticline is a basement-involved inversion structure that is young, as shown by changes in structural relief on its south flank (2). Yanan interferes with Yakeng anticline (3), making analysis of Yakeng more challenging.
Figure 9: Measurement of area of structural relief (A11) following the model of Figure 8 is ambiguous since the undeformed regional gradient (4) is hard to determine because the basement is folded
and thickness varies regionally. Therefore we move our analysis to the thickness domain (Figures
1014).
112
2-14: Analysis of Yakeng in the thickness domain

By flattening the structure to appropriate horizons we can view the structure in the
thickness domain and more easily determine the regional stratigraphic gradients
(Figures 1012), which are needed to measure areas of structural relief (Figures 10,
12). The analysis shows us that interval 4-15 has undergone significant shortening
(1200 m) and interval 4-5 has undergone additional diapiric flow (0.8 km2). The overlying strata (15-27) show modest thinning over Yakeng and nearly constant thickness relief, which can be modeled as the beginning of growth. Strata above horizon
27 are more strongly thinned, showing a recent acceleration of growth of Yakeng,
preceeding its emergence as a topographic feature.
Figure 12: Yakeng anticline flattened to horizon 4 (h=v). The analysis given below shows that horizons 514 have undergone 1200 m of shortening and thickening
above an evaporitic detachment. There is and additional 0.8 km 2 of diapirism in the basal layer (4-5). Horizons 1527 show a nearly linear upward dearease in shortening. After horizon 27 time shortening and uplift has accelerated leading to topographic emergence.
Figure 10: Section produced by flattening on horizon 4. It is

easier in this thickness display than in the depth display (Figure
9) to identify the regional stratigraphic gradients (1, also see
Figure 11) for measuring area of structural relief (A11) and undeformed height (h11). Note that Yanan anticline largely disappears
in this thickness display because it is a flexural-slip fold conserving layer thickness, whereas Yakeng is visible because it has
grown by layer thickening. Yanan anticline appears only as a
depression (2) because of stratigraphic thinning due to growth
(see interval 1522 Figure 11), but at deeper levels (3) the slight
depression is produced by flow of the basal evaporitic layer (4-5).
Figure 11: The keys to interpreting Yakeng anticline are

revealed by its thickness variations. The basal evaporitic
interval (54) shows thickness variation largely caused by
diapiric flow (Figure 13). Interval 5-15 shows large regional
northward stratigraphic thickening reflecting syndepositional flexure of the basement, plus local structural thickening
at Yakeng. The overlying interval 15-27 shows stratigraphic thinning over both Yanan and Yakeng anticlines,
indicating growth. The uppermost interval (topo-27) shows
large thinning over Yakeng, indicating accelerated growth
including diapirism.
Figure 13: Area of thickness relief increases linearly from layer 5 to 15 indicating a nearly constant shortening of 1200 m (compare Figure 8). The nonzero intercept indicates an additional 0.8 km2 of diapiric flow in the basal
evaporitic interval (4-5). The interval of nearly constant relief (1527) can be
modeled as a growth internal (S/H = 0.2, assuming diapirism is after horizon 27.)
Conclusions:
Figure 14: Shortening is calculated from area of relief minus the diapiric area
(see Figures 8 and 13). The nearly linear shortening within the growth interval
(15-27) suggests that diapirism is late, leading to the topographic emergence of
Yakeng. The larger apparent shortening of layers 5-6 may suggest a small additional diapiric component.
Yakeng anticline the value of analysis in the thickness domain:
Thickness analysis clearly identifies the growth, pregrowth, and diapiric intervals.
Beds in the pregrowth sequence have shortened by 1200 m.
There a significant diapiric component in the basal evaporitic layer (0.8 km2).
The growth of Yakeng between horizons 1527 shows a nearly linear rate of shortening, followed by an
acceleration of growth and topographic emergence.
The topography shows folding of previously through-flowing stream valleys
This study was supported by NSF EAR-0073759, NSFC 49832040, TPEDB-PetroChina, and Princeton 3-D Structure Project.
113
2-15: Odd geologic structures of southern

Oklahoma revisited, Oklahoma, U.S.A.
Paul Genovese, Grizzly Energy Resources, LLC., Columbia Falls, Montana, U.S.A.
Location: Ardmore Basin, Oklahoma, U.S.A.
Topics: Fault-bend folding, fault-propagation folding, structural wedging, kinematic forward models, growth strata
Introduction
C.W. Tomlinson (Odd Geologic Structures of Southern
Oklahoma, 1952) observed that late Paleozoic Structures of
types somewhat unusual for the Mid-Continent region occur in the
Ardmore district of Oklahoma. Despite structural peculiarity,
application of fault-related fold theory to a modern 2-D seismic
profile can explain the geometry of Fox-Graham Field (Figure 2),
one of Tomlinsons odd structures. This section (2-15) illustrates 1) application of fault-bend fold theory to produce a model
of fault shape and footwall structure, 2) how concepts of structural wedging and fault propagation folding combine to produce a
model explaining the geometry and kinematics of the rabbit-ear
fold (Figure 2) and, 3) how these models are synthesized to produce a retrodeformable, kinematically-viable, forward model that
evolves to approximate the present geometry of the structure.
approximate 2-D
seismic line location
Figure 2: Uninterpreted, depth-converted 2-D seismic profile across Fox-Graham Field and the Harrisburg Trough. Besides the well-imaged fold that dominates the profile, of particular
importance in constraining a fault-related fold interpretation are the geometry of the pre-Pennsylvanian unconformity (1), recognition of fault plane reflections (2) and, recognition of footwall
structure (3). Tomlinson (1952) described the rabbit-ear fold along trend of the one imaged here. No vertical exaggeration.
Figure 1: Location map.
114
2-15: Odd structures

Fault-Bend Fold Analysis: The true utility of fault-bend fold theory (Suppe,
1983), is its capability to provide a complete fault/fold solution using limited data. Figures 3 and 4 illustrate data constraints and fault-bend fold solution for the large fold. The solution (Figure 4) is a multiple bend fault-bend
fold. By itself, the solution is largely geometric with few explicit kinematic
implications. Incorporating other observations into the interpretation
makes it more robust. Recognizing the unconformity as an originally horizontal isochron, for instance, constrains possible kinematic solutions by
defining the timing and location of folding. As an example, the small forelimb (+I in Figure 3) is not folded sympathetically with the unconformity,
and is therefore interpreted as an older structure, as opposed to a limb
formed by slip through Bend 3 (Figure 4).
Figure 3: Subdivision of the fold into dip domains (regions of equal dip, as in Suppe, 1983) in preparation for fault-bend fold analysis . Dips and the fault-plane
segment are regarded as hard constraints for the purposes of interpretation. Question marks denote uncertainty in the downward continuation of the fault plane
and fold axial surfaces (dashed black lines).
Figure 4: Constrained fault-bend fold solution fully

predicts fault-plane geometry.
115
imbricate
Models of Footwall Deformation: The shape of the unconformity provides critical information about the kinematic evolution of the fold. Using the folded unconformity as a strain
gauge and restoring fault slip, it is demonstrated that the
hanging wall fold cannot be the product of slip on a single
fault (Figure 5) but must result in part from folding in its footwall. Further, the folded unconformity helps constrain models of footwall folding (Figures 6 and 7).
unconformity
Figures 6a and 6b are models of footwall imbricate

structures proposed to explain the present geometry of
the folded unconformity in Figure 5a. In each case,
fault Bend 1 (and consequently Bends 2 and 3) are
deactivated by, and passively transported by, the footwall imbricate. Folding is generated only at Bend 4, a
synclinal bend in the imbricate fault. These models do
not explain the shape of the folded unconformity in
Figure 5a, and are discarded as possible solutions.
KEY
Bend 3
Bend 2
active axial surface (anchored to fault bend/tip,

beds fold as they move through)
inactive axial surface (anchored to the rock, former
site of active folding)
folding generated by footwall wedge
folding generated by slip on upper fault
Figures 7a through 7e: Sequence of steps in a kinematic forward
model that, unlike those shown in Figure 6, reproduces the shape of
the folded unconformity in Figure 5 and the seismic profile. In this
model, a structural wedge folds the footwall and refolds the overlying
hanging wall. Slip on the upper fault in Figure 7e completes the deformation, giving the unconformity its present shape. Note the shoulder produced, in part, by rolling a flat part of the unconformity
through Bend 3 and tilting it forward onto the crest of the fold.
Compare this feature with that shown on the seismic line in Figure 2.
Folding generated in the footwall is shaded differently from that generated in the hanging wall for clarity in Figure 7d, 7e (refer to key).
While there is no direct evidence for a thrusted footwall wedge on the
seismic data, southwest-verging thrust and reverse faults are not
uncommon in the Ardmore Basin (e.g. Overbrook Thrust, Caddo
Fault).
Bend 1
Figure 5a: Kinematic model based on the fault-bed fold solution of Figure 4. Gray panels
represent rock folded through fault bends after the unconformity was formed. Their width is
consistent with fault slip applied at lower left. The red panel cannot be explained by the same
slip.
shoulder
Figure 5b: Model restored by removing fault slip does not restore the unconformity to horizontal above the red panel. A footwall fold of some kind (indicated by the question mark)
must exist below the red panel to account for the discrepancy. The width of kink band A-A
represents the total slip of the hanging wall before the unconformity was formed. B-B, which
locally refolds A-A, represents slip on an unspecified footwall fault after the time the unconformity formed.
116

Rabbit-Ear Fold: An odd type of structure described by
Tomlinson (1952) is the rabbit-ears anticlinoria. Figure 8 compares Tomlinsons rabbit-ear fold with one imaged on the seismic profile a few miles away. Figure 9 shows a generalized
model of how this type of rabbit-ear fold could form as a type
of structural wedge.
Forward Kinematic Model: Figure 10a through 10i shows stages in a balanced, kinematic forward model. Figure 10j shows that
the model result is a good fit with the seismic data giving validity to the solution. It must be noted that the solution is not
unique, especially for the footwall structure, but is kinematically viable and therefore more robust than a balanced cross section. Models like this are useful for considering any time-space dependent features in the petroleum system such as fracture
distribution and intensity, migration pathways and traps, and source-rock/reservoir juxtaposition during generation.
10a
8a
10b
8b
Figure 8 compares a kinematic model of a rabbit-ear fold superimposed on seismic
profile (Figure 8a, enlarged from Figure 2), with the rabbit-ear modified from
Tomlinson (1952) constructed from well control (Figure 8b). Although the interpreted
structures are a few miles apart, they bear some similarity, most notably the folded
pre-Pennsylvanian (1) and pre-Atokan (2) unconformities in the core of the structure.
9a
9b
9c
Figure 9 shows the kinematic development of a fold similar to the rabbit-ear folds
in Figure 8, without the complications of
unconformities and pre-existing structure.
Figure 10a: Initial conditions for kinematic model. (1) is a fold limb
related to deep thrust, perhaps the Arbuckle Thrust, inferred by different
authors to sole between ~ -30,000 (Crawford et al., 1990) and -60,000'
under the Ardmore Basin. (2) is an incipient thrust fault. (3) is a fault bend
that is the locus for development of a fault-propagation fold.
10c
Figure 10b: (1) is a fault-propagation fold, with slight backward shear (2)
applied to achieve balance. (3) is an incipient fault that will decapitate the faultpropagation fold consistent with the observation that the internal angle (4) of the
fault-propagation fold (g* of Suppe and Medwedeff, 1990) is not found on the
present-day hanging wall.
10d
Figure 9a shows the incipient thrust and

backthrust (dashed red lines) that define
the wedge tip. Fault-bend fold parameters q
and f are used with standard fault-bend
fold theory (Suppe, 1983) to calculate the
dip of kink band (a) in Figure 9b. This theoretical treatment is identical to that of a
nondetachment wedge thrust (Medwedeff,
1988).
Figure 9b and 9c show how fault slip on
the backthrust is consumed by the faultpropagation fold. Theoretically, the dip of
forelimb (b) is equivalent to that predicted
by fixed-axis fault-propagation fold theory
(Suppe and Medwedeff, 1990) where q = f
= dip of (a).
Figure 10c: Slip on fault (1) translates the hanging wall. Pre-Atokan
unconformity (2) (erosion exceeds uplift) is folded forward (3) as it passes
over fault bend (4). Atokan sediments onlap unconformity near (3) and
fault (1) reaches the seafloor at (5) as a contractional growth fault.
Figure 10d: Emplacement of structural wedge (1) produces kink band (2) in the footwall and folds the overlying hanging wall. Subsequently, the pre-Pennsylvanian unconformity (3) truncates the hanging wall, preserving a remnant (4) of the pre-Atokan
unconformity. Deposition of the Pennsylvanian Deese group follows erosion (5).
117

10e
Figure 10e: Initial wedge block fails and second wedge block (1) is emplaced
producing kink band (2) and slight bend in fault (3).
10f
10f
Figure 10f: Renewed slip on deep (Arbuckle?) thrust widens initial kink
band (1) by an amount (2) folding the entire section.
Figure 10g: Renewed slip fault (1) produces hanging wall folding at fault bends
(2)(5). Rabbit-ear fold (6) begins to form above fault tip (7).
10j
10h
Figure 10h: Continued slip on fault (1) amplifies growth of rabbit-ear fold.
10i
Figure 10i: Final increment of slip on fault (1) results in present structural geometry.
Figure 10j: Final stage of kinematic forward model from Figure 10i, enlarged and superimposed
on seismic profile. Note in particular the good fit between the model and the unconformity (1),
shoulder (2), rabbit-ear fold (3), and footwall reflections (4).
118

Timing of
structural
events
Table 1: Timing of structural events interpreted in kinematic model and on 2-D seismic profile. Letters correspond
to labels in Figure 11. Orogenies are adapted from Lang (1957) and Tomlinson and McBee (1959), based mainly on
the presence of conglomerates in the stratigraphic section. Events A-G support punctuated orogenesis, whereas H
demonstrates continuous deformation. The discrepancy in the thickness of Mississippian strata in well 3 vs. well 4
indicates that uplift related to slip on fault D probably began prior to deposition of basal Atoka, as opposed to after
as illustrated in the kinematic model. Observation of growth folding (as in Suppe et al., 1992) constrain displacements in the kinematic model to show that the shoulder and rabbit-ear folds (Figure 11) formed coevally with G.
Both of these folds trap and produce significant quantities of oil, demonstrating that migration occurred after the
Pennsylvanian.
Conclusions:
This case study synthesizes basic observations from seismic and well data
(Figure 2), fault-bend fold analysis (Figures 3 and 4), kinematic constraints
on models of footwall deformation (Figures 57), principles of rabbit-ear
folding (Figures 8 and 9), and a fully-retrodeformable kinematic model
(Figure 10) to reasonably match the shape and explain the origin and timing of structures observed on a seismic profile (Figure 11, Table 1). It is
demonstrated that application of fault-related fold theory can even yield
tractable geometric and kinematic solutions for odd structures, like those
found in southern Oklahoma.
Acknowledgements:
The author thanks Texaco Exploration and Production Inc. (in particular
Frank Gaines) for providing the 2-D seismic line used in this study. Much of
this study was completed as part of the authors Ph.D. thesis research at
Princeton University, special thanks to advisor John Suppe and colleagues
John Shaw, Frank Bilotti, and Chris Connors. This section (2-15) benefitted
from thorough and thoughtful reviews by Stephen Hook and Peter Brennan.
Figure 11: Cross-section interpretation of the seismic profile from Figure 2, incorporating the final stage of the kinematic model from Figure 10i (boundary shown in
gray) plus additional well control (2, 3, and 4). Stratigraphy in the kinematic model is modified to better fit well control. Refer to Table 1 for labels AH.
119
2-16: Fault-bend folds in the southern Caribbean Ranges,

San Carlos, Venezuela
P. E. Kraemer, Pecom Energia, S.A., Neuquen, Argentina
J. Silvestro, Pecom Energia, S.A., Neuquen, Argentina
Location: Caribbean Ranges, San Carlos,Venezuela
Topics: Fault-bend folds structures, thrusting sequence, restoration
The San Carlos fold belt is located at the southern tip of the allocthonous thrust front of the Caribbean Ranges, Venezuela (Figure 1). The
seismic example (Figure 2) shows a buried fold and thrust belt overlying a normal faulted authoctonous platform. The main structures are
three folds (, , ) with typical kink geometries (Suppe, 1983) overlain
by a Quaternary unconformity (U). The anticlines and are linked to
a common decollement folded by the anticline and deep kink panels
probably related to footwall shale flow. The shortening on the main
thrust ramp is transferred to a structural wedge duplex at the front of
the fold belt (d). The anticline is interpreted as a multi-bend-fault-bend
fold (Medwedeff and Suppe, 1997) with two foot-wall (FWR1-2) and
hanging-wall (HWR1-2) ramps. The anticline is a folded single ramp
fault-bend fold. The syncline () is interpreted as an early thrust sheet,
folded by a late thrust sheet ().
Figure 1: Location map a) Geologic map of the Southern Caribbean thrust front, Venezuela. b)
Main structural features at the base of Quaternary unconformity.
Figure 2: Uninterpreted and interpreted seismic section. Numbers 1, 2, and 3 indicate the suggested sequence of deformation of thrust sheets. Horizontal scale equals
vertical scale. Section trace shown in Figure 1. Time migrated seismic section displayed in depth.
120
2-16: Structural restoration

To test the validity of our structural interpretation and document the
sequence of thrusting, we present a four-stage area balanced restoration of
section A-A. The sequence of deformation is summarized as:
Stage 0: Full restoration.
Stage 1: Footwall shale flow was active in the early stages of emplacement of thrust sheet until the late emplacement of thrust
sheet .
Stage 2: Emplacement of thrust sheet .
Stage 3: Emplacement of thrust sheet , folded by a late anticline .
Stage 4: Emplacement of thrust sheet that folds thrust sheet .
Total shortening is 3.2 km, distributed as follows: thrust sheet = 0.76
km, thrust sheets , , = 1.7 km, thrust sheet = 0.8 km.
Conclusions:
The seismic example shows typical kink-fold geometry.
Folds are interpreted as single- and multi-bend fault-bend folds.
Based on geometric constraints, the sequence of deformation is interpreted as shallow foreland propagating thrust sheets (, , ) that are refolded by late deeper hinterland anticlines (, ).
Figure 3: Sequential restoration showing the proposed sequence of deformation. Active faults are indicated
by solid red lines. Red dashed lines show fault trajectory prior to displacement.
Acknowledgements:
The authors would like to thank Pecom Energia S.A. for the authorization to publish this section (2-16).
121
2-17: Quirk Creek anticline, Alberta, Canada

Steven Lingrey, ExxonMobil Upstream Research Co., Houston, Texas, U.S.A.
Location: Southern Alberta Foothills, Canada
Topics: Fault-bend folding
Reserves: Gas nearby in Lower Carboniferous carbonate reservoirs
The Foothills of the Canadian Rocky Mountains have provided many examples
of fold and thrust fault structural features considered to be characteristic of
the detached contraction of sedimentary layering (Bally et al., 1966;
Dahlstrom, 1970; Price, 1981; Boyer and Elliot, 1982). Surface exposures are
augmented by extensive seismic reflection profiling and by oil and gas drilling.
Fault-related fold mechanisms (Suppe, 1983; Jamison, 1987; Suppe and
Medwedeff, 1990) offer a means of more systematic analysis and prediction of
subsurface geometry within the context of seismic and well control. The
southern Alberta Foothills are particularly well suited for this type of analysis
because: 1) the area yields very good land seismic data, 2) well control is
abundant (mature gas field drilling province), 3) well-documented and uncomplicated pre-tectonic stratigraphic geometry (Cordilleran miogeoclinal platform strata situated east of the hingeline), and 4) an empirically constrained
system of bedding detachment horizons. In seismic data acquired over the
northern Quirk Creek area (10 km south of Moose Mountain culmination;
Figure 1) a clear example of a hanging-wall ramp (cutoff) is expressed by its
time-migrated reflection image (Figures 2, 3). The full uninterpreted seismic
line is displayed in Figure 4; its interpretation is displayed in Figure 5.
Figure 1: Location map for the seismic line showing position in inner Foothills
between Moose Mountain culmination and Quirk Creek gas field. Paleozoic outcrop is shaded blue.
Figure 2: Detail view of time-migrated seismic image of hanging-wall ramp (cutoff) showing bedding reflection terminations against fault reflection. Lower
Paleozoic terminations are clear between A-A and A-A; Upper Paleozoic terminations between B-B are off the end of the seismic line, but are visible in
adjacent seismic data. The geometry of fold axes can be inferred in a fault-bend fold sense.
Figure 3: Fault-bend fold structural interpretation of detailed seismic image. Thrust fault trajectory is shown by dashed red line and its dotted projection off
the end of the seismic data. Fold axes are shown by dashed green lines; long dashes relate to changes between hanging-wall flats and ramps, short dashes
relate to secondary bends in the fault trajectory. Blue lines with arrowheads mark bedding orientations with cut-offs against the fault, blue lines with dashed
ends mark bedding roughly parallel to the fault. The isochrons between reflections mark an increase towards the anticlinal crest interpreted to be caused by
subseismic small thrust faults.
122
2-17: Quirk Creek
Figure 4: Post-stack time-migrated 2-D seismic reflection profile across the northern Quirk Creek area. Display is scaled to be 1:1 at an average interval velocity of 4000 m/s. Three wells indicate key stratigraphic tops and positions of fault repetitions. Three
stratigraphically calibrated zones of distinctive reflections guide interpretation away from the well control (yellow boxes): 1) a very high-amplitude continuous reflection event (doublet) characterizes the Jurassic-Lowermost Cretaceous Fernie-Kootenay zone immediately overlying the Lower Carboniferous (Mississippian) Rundle Group, 2) a high-amplitude sporadically continuous reflection commonly occurs just above the top of the Devonian Palliser Formation, and 3) a system of higher amplitude reflections, three to four
cycles long, indicates the Cambrian strata.
123
2-17: Quirk Creek
Figure 5: Post-stack time-migrated 2-D seismic reflection profile across the northern Quirk Creek area showing structural interpretation. Blue line marks top of the Rundle Group; dark blue line marks top of the Palliser Formation; pink line marks middle Devonian
marker near the top of the Cambrian. Lines are dashed where seismic reflection imaging becomes uncertain. Thrust fault trajectories are marked by heavy, dark red lines. Bedding and faults allow subdivision of the Paleozoic into three layers: 1) Lower
Carboniferous (shaded blue), 2) Devonian (shaded dark blue, and 3) Cambrian (shaded pink). A semi-continuous set of high-amplitude reflections interpreted to be the base of the Cambrian reflection set below the basal decollement are shaded light orange. The
heavy, dashed orange line is the projected regional position for the base of the Cambrian assuming a flat, gentle (23 degrees) surface. The discrepancy between the two orange lines indicates a velocity anomaly that can be correlated to the number (net thickness)
of repetitions of Paleozoic carbonates. Beneath the exploration well 2-23-21-6W5, the velocity pull-up effect reaches 600 m/s.
124
2-17: Quirk Creek

To a first approximation, the Fernie-Kootenay reflection event
separates the Mesozoic rocks above, which show interval velocities of 4000 m/s, from the Paleozoic rocks below, which show
interval velocities of 6000 m/s. Imbrication of fast rocks above
Paleozoic detachment horizons deflects (pulls up) the unfaulted
sub-basal decollement reflection (lowest parts of the Cambrian
reflections). The magnitude of pull-up can be matched to the
excess thickness of Paleozoic imbricates contained in the overall
structure. The profile expression of the anticline conforms to
fault-bend fold theory in that its western limb dip is caused by
footwall ramps and its eastern limb dips are caused by hangingwall ramps. Deeper elements show duplex-style deformation that
slightly modifies the overlying hanging-wall ramp. Conversion of
the time image to depth allows the degree of conformance to
ideal fault bend fold theory to be measured (Figure 6). The hanging-wall ramp steps up from a lower detachment in the Cambrian
to an upper detachment in the Fernie-Kootenay. The upper
detachment begins just past the eastern end of this seismic line;
its position in the hanging-wall can be traced on other seismic
lines to the east where it is observed to place the JurassicCretaceous Fernie-Kootenay strata atop middle and Upper
Cretaceous strata. As the hanging-wall ramp crosses the
Paleozoic strata, it flattens briefly at an intermediate detachment
horizon located at the base of the Lower Carboniferous layer
(Banff detachment). Displacement is larger than the horizontal
extent of the hanging-wall ramp (> 5 km) so that the cutoffs fully
overlie the upper detachment. The corresponding footwall ramp
must exist west of the seismic data. Figure 7 shows a restoration
of the depth profile and an idealized geometric model using
Suppes (1983) mathematical constraints of fault-bend folding.
Figure 6: Depth-converted profile of time-migrated seismic image. Time image velocity distortions due to lateral increase in fast Paleozoic rocks relative to slow Mesozoic rocks
are removed. Basal fault trajectory consistently overlies Fernie-Kootenay strata and therefore is a footwall flat; the step in the central part of the fault is a bend caused by footwall
deformation (northern plunge end of Quirk Creek gas trap). A-A and A-A mark position of lower hanging-wall ramp and B-B marks position of upper hanging-wall ramp.
Conclusions:
Fault-bend fold theory makes a good match with the Quirk
Creek anticline observed in seismic data.
Westerly dips arise from thrust sheet strata overlying footwall ramps (cutoffs).
Easterly dips arise from rotation of the leading-edge cutoffs
(hanging-wall ramp) onto an upper detachment.
Footwall duplexing complicates, but does not obscure the
fault-bend fold.
Figure 7: Restoration and geometric modeling of fault-bend fold geometry. Top section (A) is a restoration of the depth profile using a flexural-slip mechanism. Restoration recovers the
primary flat-ramp-flat fault geometry. Lower three sections (B, C, D) show the initial, middle, and final states of a forward geometric model using Suppes (1983) fault-bend fold theory.
The final deformation state nearly matches depth profile in Figure 6. Second order internal shortening of Devonian and Cambrian layers are ignored by the geometric model.
125
2-18: Imbricate fault-related folding,

South Caribbean Basin, Colombia
Freddy Corredor, Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S.A.
Tomas Villamil1, Exploration Vice-President, Ecopetrol, Bogot, Colombia
1
Present address: Lukoil Overseas Colombia, Ltd., Bogot, D.C., Colombia
Location: South Caribbean Basin, offshore northern Colombia
Topics: Conventional and shear imbricate fault-bend folds
The South Caribbean basin represents an accretionary prism that
resulted from the transpressional collision between the Caribbean and
South American plates during the Tertiary. An imbricate thrust system
in the southern portion of the basin is clearly imaged with 2-D seismic
reflection data, with which we interpret fold and fault geometries and
patterns of growth sedimentation. We model this imbricate system
using a combination of conventional and shear imbricate fault-related
folding theories (Suppe, 1983; Corredor et al., 2002; Suppe et al., 2003),
and trishear kinematics (Erslev, 1991; Allmendinger, 1998). The patterns of growth sedimentation that can be observed in this imbricate
system are used to further constrain the models.
Figure 1:
Regional topography, bathymetry,
and tectonic elements of Colombia
and location of the
Seismic line (1)
used for this study.
Seismic data courtesy of ECOPETROL

Figure 2: Uninterpreted, migrated, and depth converted 2-D seismic profile across the Fuerte Imbricate System in the South Caribbean Basin, offshore northern Colombia. Two
stacked thrust sheets are imaged (see detailed description in Figure 4). We observe two structural patterns that are consistent with break-forward imbricate systems: A) The upper
thrust fault appears folded by the underlying thrust sheet, and B) younger growth strata are folded above the frontal thrust sheet.
126
2-18: Imbricate fault-related folding Colombia

The Fuerte Imbricate System is located in the Southwest Caribbean Basin, beneath a large
deltaic system. This deltaic system was fed primarily by the paleo-Atrato, Sin, and
Magdalena rivers. The northern boundary of the imbricate system is the east-west trending Canoas fault. The western limit corresponds to the South Caribbean Deformation
front. The deformation in this imbricate system began late during the Miocene(?) and
continues through the present day, resulting in its pronounced bathymetry expression
(Figure 3). The thrust sheets are composed of Miocene marine shales and turbidite sands
(Potential Reservoirs). This imbricate system is detached at the bottom of an
Oligocene(?) fine-grained section, which is a potential source rock. This system preserves growth strata that records fault and fold kinematics. These growth sediments are
deposited in piggy-back basins formed over the backlimbs of individual imbricates and
as onlapping sequences against the forelimbs (Figures 2 and 3). The piggy-back stratigraphy consist of distal marine, fine-grained sediments and condense sections. In the
uppermost portion of the seismic profile, a spectacular Pleistocene prograding deltaic
sequence can be observed.
Figure 4: 2-D post-stack migrated and depth-converted seismic section through the imbricate system interpreted in this contribution showing some
important characteristics including: (1) Sea floor reflection, (2) Growth sedimentation, and thrust faults defined by fault-plane reflections and cutoff
(red arrows). Notice how the upper thrust fault is folded across the syncline by the lower thrust sheet.
Figure 3: High resolution sea floor bathymetric image of a region north of the Fuerte Imbricate system interpreted in this contribution,
and regional map showing the location of (1) the bathymetric image, and (2) the seismic line across the Fuerte imbricate system. The
ridges on the southern portion of the image (3) represent northeast-trending thrust-related folds that are actively deforming the sea floor
and controlling the course of meandering turbidity channels (4). The low regions between ridges (5) correspond to the piggy-back basins
formed above the backlimbs of individual fault imbricates. On the upper right corner (6), the southern limit of the Magdalena delta system
is burying these active folds and faults. The limit between these two systems corresponds to the Canoas Fault (7).
The stratigraphic sequences imaged in the seismic profile (Figure 4) correspond to Tertiary
marine and deltaic sediments. At the bottom of the section an Oligocene(?) sequence is interpreted (3), and is composed of thick deep marine shale sequences (potential source rocks), and
may contain some interbedded turbidite sands (potential reservoirs in deep water environments). On seismic sections, this sequence is generally devoid of internal reflections. This formation is interpreted to correspond to a weak decollement layer that undergoes an externally
imposed shear deformation in this imbricate system. Seismic reflections beneath this sequence
are generally continuous laterally, suggesting that the decollement for this system is located at
the bottom of the Oligocene(?) shale. The Oligocene(?) sequence is overlaid by Miocene-Pliocene
interbedded shallow marine shales and sandstones (4) that produce seismic reflections with
higher amplitudes and lower frequencies. In the uppermost portion of the seismic profile, a spectacular Pleistocene prograding deltaic sequence can be observed (5). This deltaic sequence is
not folded by the underlying imbricate system constraining the age for the end of deformation in
these particular thrust sheets. Fault plane reflections and cutoffs are clearly observed (red
arrows) that constrain the geometry of both thrust faults. The upper thrust fault is folded by the
lower fault suggesting a break-forward sequence of imbrication. Break-forward imbrication
results from a new thrust being developed in the footwall of what was previously the active
thrust.
127

Folding vectors describe folding shear strains, which are angular measures
of the change in orientations of beds and faults across a fold limb or kink
band (see section 1B-5). Thus, folding vectors can describe the refolding of
overlying thrust sheets due to imbrication (Shaw et al., 1999; see section 1B5). As mentioned earlier, we observe two structural patterns in the seismic
image that are consistent with this being a break-forward imbricate system:
A) The upper thrust fault appears folded by the underlying thrust sheet,
and B) younger growth strata are folded above the frontal thrust sheet.
Using folding vectors, we test the idea that the shallow thrust sheet (red
arrows in Figure 5A) is folded by a deeper thrust.
Slip and shear on the deep thrust has produced multiple kink bands that
should have refolded the overlying thrust sheet if this is a break-forward
system. Hence, the orientation of the shallow thrust, and beds in its hanging wall, should change as the thrust sheet passes over the underlying kink
bands. The folding vector method is used to predict the amount of deflection of the shallow thrust as it is refolded by the two underlying kink bands,
which are bounded by axial surfaces (A-A; B-B). If the predicted shape of
the fault is consistent with the observed fault shape, it will confirm that this
is a break-forward imbricate system.
The deflections of bedding across the deep kink bands are used to determine the folding vectors (U and V). Folding vectors are measured parallel to
axial surface orientations. In a break-forward system, folding vectors U and
V should be equal to the deflections of the shallow thrust described by vectors X and Y, respectively. (Note: This method is based on conservation of
shear, and hence line length, parallel to the axial surface orientation). The
thrust fault on the right side of the section, before entering the kink band AA, has a dip of approximately 10. The folding vector U is measured as the
deflection of the light blue layer (Figure 5B) across axial surface A in the
footwall of the thrust fault. The folding vector U is then used to predict the
deflection (X) of the shallow thrust fault (U = X). The predicted dip of the
folded fault above kink band A-A is 19, consistent with the dip of the fault
plane observed in Figure 5A. Moving to the left, the thrust fault next enters
the kink band B-B at its dip of 19. The folding vector V is measured as the
deflection of the light blue layer across the axial surface B, and is used to
predict the deflection (Y) of the shallow thrust fault across the kink band BB (V = Y). The predicted dip (31.5) of the refolded fault above kink band BB is also consistent with the dip of the fault plane seismic reflection. This
confirms that these thrust sheets form a break-forward imbricate system.
Figure 5. Uninterpreted (A) and interpreted (B) close-up view of the Fuerte Imbricate System, offshore northern Colombia, to
illustrate how folding vectors (see section 1B-5) are used to interpret this break-forward imbricate system.
128
Part 2X: Imbricate Systems offshore Colombia
This imbricate system can be modelled using combined conventional and shear imbricate fault-bend
folding theories. Using folding vectors we have shown on the previous page (Figure 5) that this system
has a break-forward sequence of imbrication. Additionally, we observe three structural patterns that
suggest shear fault-bend folding (see section 1B-4) is an important mechanism in this imbricate system
(Figure 6). The thrust sheets show gentle back-limbs that dip less than the fault ramps, growth sediments show evidences of limb rotation, and a broad anticline in the shallow thrust sheet overlies a synclinal bend on the thrust fault. In simple shear fault-bend folding, the weak decollement layer
(Oligocene?) at the base of fault ramps undergoes an externally imposed bedding-parallel simple shear.
The total slip produced by the shear is accommodated by increasing slip along the fault ramps, and by
rotation along the back-limbs. Further frontal imbrication and the transfer of shear produce a decrease
in the ramp and bedding angles in younger and shallower thrust faults (Figure 7), occasionally producing folds not directly related to a fault-bend.
Figure 6: 2-D depth-converted seismic section through the imbricate system interpreted in this contribution showing the characteristics that suggest this system
involves shear imbricate fault-bend folding: (1) Backlimbs dip less than fault ramps, (2) Small forelimbs compared to backlimbs, (3) Growth sedimentation show evidences of limb rotation, and (4) Anticline is underlaid by a synclinal bend (5) in the associated thrust fault. Notice also that the upper thrust fault is folded across the
syncline by the lower thrust sheet, as described on the previous page.
Incipient thrust Fault
Figure 7: Forward model of a break-forward sequence of imbrication by forward distributed transfer of shear showing the
resulting patterns of growth sedimentation. Imbricate fault-bend fold theory describes refolding of shallow thrust sheets by
younger and deeper faults. A) an incipient thrust. B) and C) a simple shear fault-bend fold grows by increasing simple
shear across the weak decollement layer. The growth strata show evidences of limb rotation and kink band migration. D-E)
a frontal thrust sheet is formed by simple shear fault-bend folding. This additional shear produces forward (counterclockwise) rotation of the shallower and younger thrust sheet, effectively decreasing the dip values of the fault ramp and folding
bedding. A portion of the flat crest of the fold rotates forward, forming a forelimb with no associated fault-bend comparable
to that observed in Figure 6. The growth sediments deposited in the earlier stages are also refolded by the younger thrust.
129
Figure 8: Interpreted depth converted seismic profile across the Fuerte Imbricate System, combining
the results from the structural analyses presented
on the preceding pages. The stratigraphic correlation is based on regional interpretation of seismic
facies across a large seismic survey. The complex
geometry of the lower thrust ramp is interpreted to
result from an externally imposed simple shear in
its footwall (Shear Profile 2) caused by thrust
sheets that lie to the northwest of this image. The
shallower thrust sheet shows an anticline in the
right portion of the section, which is underlaid by a
synclinal fault bend. This relationship is interpreted
as the result of forward rotation of the bedding and
the thrust fault due to the simple shear fault-bend
folding in the underlying thrust sheet (Shear Profile
1). Shear faultbend folding is consistent with
growth sediments showing evidence of limb rotation, and with back limbs dipping less than the
fault ramps. Shearing in the lower thrust sheet has
also refolded the shallower thrust fault and the beds
in its hanging wall, indicating that this is a breakforward imbricate system.
Conclusions:
The Fuerte structure is a break-forward, shear imbricate fault-bend fold system in the southern Caribbean basin, offshore northern Colombia.
Folding vectors are used to interpret the thrusting sequence.
Several characteristics allow the interpretation of shear imbrication in this system, including: A) beds on the backlimbs dip less than fault ramps, B) growth sediments show evidences of both
limb rotation and kink-band migration, and C) an anticline in the shallower thrust sheet is underlied by a synclinal bend in the associated thrust fault.
The Fuerte structure was active early during the Miocene-Pliocene with thrust faults emerging in the sea floor. Further foreland thrusting has sheared this system and passively transported it forward along an Oligocene(?) basal detachment during the Pliocene to the present time.
130
2-19: Oligocene fold belt, western Gulf of Mexico, U.S.A.

Thomas W. Bjerstedt1, ChevronTexaco Exploration, Bellaire, Texas, U.S.A.
1Present
address: U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, New Orleans, Louisiana, U.S.A.
water bottom
Location: Western Gulf of Mexico; Port Isabel and

Alaminos Canyon OCS areas
Topics: Detachment anticlines among salt-withdrawl
mini-basins, syndepositional tectonism
Reserves: Rank exploration area
The Oligocene fold belt is a series of NE-SWtrending detachment anticlines

in the western Gulf of Mexico. Detachment folds are down-dip elements of a
coupled extensional to compressional transition. Deposition updip of upper
Oligocene Frio fluvio-deltaic systems on the Texas coast loaded prodelta
and slope environments to the ESE (Figure 1). Detachment anticlines are
common at terminations of low-angle thrusts that cut early Oligocene section. Nickoli is a well-imaged example of such a fold in this structural trend
(Figure 2). Two exploration wells were drilled in southern Port Isabel OCS
area in 1996 (Figure 3). One well lacked a reservoir and the other lacked
charge. 3-D basin modeling suggests that the northern part of the fold-belt
trend has more favorable timing relationships for hydrocarbon generation,
reservoir deposition, and trap and seal formation.
erosional truncation
Figure 2: (Above) SW-NE cross section through 3-D post-stack seismic volume. The location of the arbitrary line is shown in Figure 5. Shown
are over-thickened anticline core (1), backlimb erosional unconformity, and main growth phase of Nickoli structure (2). No vertical exaggeration.
Figure 1: (Left) W-E schematic crosssection along Oligocene depositional

dip from Texas outcrop belt to deepwater. Updip fluvio-deltaic and deltaic systems transitioned down dip to slope
and basin floor fans in Port Isabel and
Alaminos Canyon OCS areas.
Exploration targets are detachment anticlines cored by upper Oligocene sandprone fan systems in the Frio. Salt
diapirism was contemporaneous with
late Oligocene deposition and also
influenced facies patterns.
Figure 3: (Left) Map showing the general location of the

Oligocene fold belt and the Nickoli structure in Alaminos
Canyon OCS blocks 51 and 52. Dots show location of
1996 exploration wells in Port Isabel OCS area.
131
2-19: Oligocene fold belt, western Gulf of Mexico, U.S.A.

A detachment anticline forms Nickoli, a typical Oligocene fold belt structure. A deep seated
detachment surface, probably late Eocene, is mappable on 2-D regional seismic throughout the
fold belt. The oldest thrusts cut the early Oligocene section. The history of the Nickoli fold included low-angle thrusting that produced an overthickened core, rotation of the thrust backlimb and
erosion, the main growth phase, onlap by younger deposits, draping, and eventual burial. The
stratigraphic section indicated by (1) in Figure 4 is the overthickened core of the detachment anticline. The section indicated by (2) onlaps the eroded surface and indicates that the main growth
phase of Nickoli fold began at the horizon interpreted to be near top of the late Oligocene Frio
interval. Frio deposystems are expected to be sand-prone, low-stand basin floor fans.
Transgressive, shale-prone, high-stand systems overlying the Frio are recognized in the western
Gulf of Mexico as the latest Oligocene Anahuac interval. The youngest thrust was detached along
the top Frio erosional surface, possibly within condensed zone(s) at the sequence boundary.
Early Miocene deposystems that drape Nickoli and other fold belt detachment structures are
expected to be shale prone as sand was diverted into lows until folds were buried completely.
Figures 5 and 6 show mapped structure and seismic time slice.
water bottom
Figure 5 mapped surface
regional detachment surface
Figure 5: Structure contour map on the top Anahuac (Figure 4 labeled surface). The map contour
interval = 500 ft and the grid lines represent OCS blocks. The buttressing effect of the salt diapir to
the west rotated the Nickoli anticlinal axis to an east-west orientation. Salt withdrawl from diapirs
that surround the Nickoli mini-basin overprinted the basin-center structures with normal faults.
Figure 6: Showing about the same area as Figure 5. Seismic time slice near 3,050 m (10,000 ft) showing
structural configuration and position of the youngest thrust fault.
Figure 4: Annotated seismic showing regional detachment surface and detachment anticline formed by thrust faults, (1) overthickend core of regressive Frio sand-prone deposystems
(middle to late Oligocene), and erosional unconformity at the top of the Frio, and (2) onlap of Frio by Anahuac transgressive shale-prone deposystems (latest Oligocene). Early Miocene
deposits drape the fold until completely buried.
132
2-20: Edge-Sigsbee Folds, Gulf of Mexico, U.S.A.

Robert J. Alexander1, Thomas W. Bjerstedt2, and Sharon L. Moate3, ChevronTexaco, Bellaire, Texas, U.S.A.
1Present
address: BHP Billiton, Houston, Texas, U.S.A.; 2Present address: Texaco Minerals Management Service, New Orleans, Louisiana, U.S.A; 3Present address: Consultant, Bellaire, Texas, U.S.A.
Location: Western Gulf of Mexico, Keathley Canyon OCS area

Topics: Detachment anticlines, Sigsbee Escarpment
Low-relief folds at the edge of the Sigsbee Escarpment
(toe of the bathymetric slope) have prompted questions
about their origin and seismic imaging. There are two
likely hypotheses for how these structures formed: 1)
they are not real, and their seismic expression results
from velocity anomalies caused by abrupt changes in
thickness of the salt canopy at the edge of the Sigsbee
and rapid water deepening onto the abyssal plain; and 2)
they are formed by a combination of lateral compression,
detachment folding, and isostatic response to salt sheet
and sediment loading, (i.e., foreland bulge analogy). A
velocity anomaly origin (hypothesis #1) is tenuous where
these folds are continuous inboard and outboard of the
salt edge. Furthermore, these folds do not occur everywhere along the salt edge and Sigsbee Escarpment. An
origin due to gravity-gliding and lateral compression with
down-dip lateral shear on a Paleogene detachment surface (hypothesis #2) is more likely. Good quality 3-D prestack depth-migrated seismic data in the salt canopy reentrant of Keathley Canyon show that a low-relief edgeSigsbee anticlinal structure is cored by a subtle, incipient
imbricate duplex which thickens the section, arching the
overlying sediments into a probable detachment anticline. There is seismic evidence for coupling of the laterally prograding salt canopy with subjacent sediments.
Compression at the Sigsbee Escarpment (toe of the
slope) is caused by salt and sediment movement toward
the abyssal plain, which forms a duplex of thrusts above
an over-pressured basal detachment surface. The overlying sediments arch in response to this structural thickening as is seen in foreland triangle zones. Although we
dont offer this explanation for all edge-Sigsbee structures, the interpretation should be considered when wellimaged pre-stack depth-migrated seismic data is available to test hypotheses.
Figure 1: (Above) 3-D pre-stack depth-migrated seismic line down the axis of Keathley
Canyon and showing a fold and the leading edge of the Sigsbee salt canopy (light blue).
Figure 2: (Right) Bathymetry of the deepwater Gulf of Mexico showing the location of
Keathley Canyon, the Sigsbee Escarpment and the seismic line. Red color is ~600'
(183 m) and blue color is ~9000' (2744 m) water depth.
133
2-20: Edge-Sigsbee Folds, Gulf of Mexico, U.S.A.

Velocity modeling of 3-D pre-stack depth-migrated seismic line through
Keathley Canyon shows a velocity inversion and inferred over-pressured
zone. A detachment surface occurs at the base of a late Paleogene shale unit.
Edge-Sigsbee detachment anticlines are formed by lateral compression of the
sedimentary section as the salt canopy expands onto the abyssal plain generating an over-pressured zone of low strength.
Figure 3: Velocity model along annotated seismic line showing velocity inversion and inferred over-pressured section;
A) Normal model, B) High velocities are clipped to better show a subtle velocity inversion in the Tertiary age section. In
Figure 3A, red color is ~14700 ft/s (4480 m/s) and blue color is ~4980 ft/s (1518 m/s). Datum is near base Paleogene.
Figure 5: Interpreted and annotated seismic line showing a low-relief, detachment anticline in subsalt sediments at the edge of the Sigsbee Escarpment. Also
shown are interpreted faults, and a late Paleogene shale unit that is interpreted as a detachment surface at the base of an inferred over-pressured zone. Velocity
analysis modeling for pre-stack depth migration and pore pressure prediction analysis identified the velocity inversion, which probably continues further northward under the salt than is shown in Figure 3.
Conclusion:
Figure 4: Enlarged inset from Figure 5. Note duplex structure in the sediments below the base of salt (blue). Compression
occurs where the base of salt is stepped, which confirms some degree of coupling with subjacent sedimentary units.
Detachment anticlines with incipient duplex structures can form the cores of low-relief, four-way closures at the
edge of the Sigsbee Escarpment, western Gulf of Mexico. Our model invokes a detachment surface in an overpressured section coupled with south-directed compression due to gravity gliding of the overlying salt+sediment
load. The suprajacent section is arched by the developing duplex structure in the core of the fold (i.e., between
purple and orange lines). There is no evidence for compressional deformation south of this seismic line (left
side) indicating this is analogous to a triangle zone in the foreland of fold and thrust belts.
134
2-21: Faultrelated folding in reactivated offshore basins, California

Carlos Rivero and John H. Shaw, Department of Earth and
Planetary Sciences, Harvard
University, Cambridge,
Massachusetts, U.S.A.
Location: Inner California Borderland, California, U.S.A.
Topics: Basin inversion fault reactivation, fault-bend folding, structural
wedges, blind-thrust
We present seismic examples that illustrate basin inversion processes in
the Inner California Borderland (ICB), offshore southern California. The ICB
developed by Miocene crustal-scale extension dominated by a pair of
regional low-angle detachments (Crouch and Suppe, 1993; Nicholson et al.,
1993). During the Pliocene, the onset of the modern transpressional regime
generated several large contractional fault-related fold trends spatially controlled by reactivation of these detachments (Rivero et al., 2000). We use a
dense grid of industry seismic reflection profiles (Figure 1), and fault-related fold theories to analyze an anticline structure within these trends. The
San Mateo anticline developed by the upward propagation of reverse slip
during the inversion of Miocene half-grabens. Based on the analyses of
kink-band panels, and growth and pre-growth sequences, we propose a
structural interpretation for this fold consistent with seismic and well data.
In addition, the structural interpretation provides insight into the kinematics of the basin inversion processes.
Figure 2: Time-migrated seismic reflection profile across the San Mateo Anticline. Note the regional oceanside detachment (1) extending beneath the San Mateo
Anticline (2). This detachment is not folded by the contractional structures; thus we interpret that the San Mateo Anticline is formed by thrusting ramping up from
this detachment surface. A preserved extensional rollover is also visible on the left-hand side of the section (3).
Figure 1: Location of
the San Mateo trend in
the Inner California
Borderlands. The study
area is defined by the
grid of seismic reflection data. Yellow circles are well locations.
L.A. = Los Angeles
Basin.
Figure 3: Time-migrated seismic reflection profile across the San Mateo Anticline. Stratigraphic tops are correlated from the San Clemente CH1 well. Well-illuminated cutoffs and fault plane reflections (1) constrain the location of a reactivated normal fault and overlying thrust ramps that form the San Mateo structure. Note the
Miocene syn-rift section penetrated by the well that expands toward the normal fault in a rollover structure. The rollover structure shows evidences of bivergent tectonic inversion or bipolar extrusion (Copper and Williams, 1989; Hayward and Graham, 1989), with both fore (1) and backthrust (2) anticlines developed by the
inversion. Gently dipping continuous reflections and three-dimensional mapping define the location of the Oceanside Thrust, one of the regional Miocene detachments reactivated in the Pliocene (3). Syn-extensional deposits and unconformities define the presence of other normal faults (4) that are not inverted.
135
2-21: Fault-related folding in reactivated offshore basins, California

Seismic interpretation
Figure 4: Balanced structural interpretation of the San Mateo Anticline. The interpretation highlights the relationship of the contractional structure to pre-existing normal faults reactivated during the phase of basin inversion. Kink-band domains in the back-limb of
the anticline, and direct fault plane reflections constrain the geometry of the San Mateo thrust from shallow to deeper levels, where it is linked to an older normal fault. The seismic image also indicates that the San Mateo ramp is refolded by a younger, deeper fault.
We interpret that both thrust faults terminate in structural wedges, as no foreland structures that could account for the transfer of slip exist beyond the San Mateo anticline. Formation tops from the well San Clemente #1. Labeled axial surfaces correspond to those
modeled in Figure 6.
We interpret the San Mateo Anticline as an imbricated fault-bend fold produced by the
upward propagation of contractional slip from an inverted normal fault into multiple
detachment levels (Figures 4, 5, and 6). The backlimb geometry of the anticline exhibiting multiple dip-domains indicates the presence of a deeper structure. This sub-thrust
structure refolds the shallow thrust sheet of the San Mateo Anticline in a way consistent
with a break-forward system (Figure 6). The thrust front terminations of the San Mateo
thrust and the underlying thrust are defined by two structural wedges that propagate
slip back to the hinterland. At this location, the interaction between the synclinal axial
surfaces of the upper detachments produces a complex geometry of the thrust front.
Stage 1: The San Mateo Thrust forms and

slip produces the kink-bands A-A and B-B
that define the shallow San Mateo
Anticline. A structural wedge in the thrust
termination of the upper detachment
transfers slip back to the hinterland.
Stage 2: Development of the sub-thrust
structure with minor displacement that
generates incipient kink-band C-C. A lower
structural wedge is also formed in the
thrust front position, analogous to San
Mateo thrust.
Stage 3: Final configuration of the imbricated system, consistent with a break-forward model (Shaw et al., 1999). Displacement on the deeper thrust refolds the San
Mateo thrust sheet, and forms a structural
wedge (triangle zone) at the western border of the fold belt.
Figure 5: Restoration of the proposed structural interpretation for the San Mateo anticline to the top of the Pliocene
Repetto Formation. The restoration highlights the role of the extensional system controlling the geometry of the
Miocene depocenters, and locating the Pliocene compressional structures. Estimated total shortening is 2.5 km.
136
Figure 6: Balanced sequential model of the development of the San Mateo structure.
2-21: Fault-related folding in reactivated offshore basins, California

3-D modeling
Integration of seismic data, fold-related folding theories, and
3-D visualization techniques are used to illustrate the complex of basin reactivation along the San Mateo trend.
Modeling of the shallow and deep structural styles, represented by the San Mateo thrust, the backthrust, and the basal
Oceanside thrust highlights the role of the regional structural
wedge in generating the contractional foreland and hinterland-directed structures.
San Mateo Anticline
Anticline trends associated with the Inversion
San Mateo Thrust
Bac
k-T
hru
st
Figure 7: (a) Oblique view of a three-dimensional model incorporating a representation of the San Mateo thrust, and the structural wedge defined by the Oceanside
thrust and the back thrust fault. Seismic image corresponds with profile Y-Y shown in Figure 3. The blue surface is the top of the syn-rift sequence (Monterrey
Formation). (b) Seismic dataset used in the definition of the surfaces shown in the 3-D model. Contours represent bathymetry of the seafloor. (c) Same view as in (a)
with the seismic image removed to highlight the lateral continuity of the structural wedge, as well as the contractional folding of the Monterrey Formation.
Oceanside Thrust
Conclusions:
The San Mateo anticline is an imbricated fault-bend fold originated by basin inversion processes. The San Mateo thrust
reactivated a segment of a northeast-dipping Miocene normal
fault.
The phase of basin inversion also reactivated a Miocene lowangle detachment as the oceanside thrust. The oceanside
thrust transferred contractional slip to associated synthetic
and antithetic normal structures, inverting a major grabenboundary fault, and generating a regional structural wedge
defined by the oceanside thrust and a backthrust zone. This
structural wedge controls the location of a prominent monocline with bathymetric expression.
The structural style varies considerably across these inverted

basins. In some areas, the pre-inversion geometry of the
Miocene basins has not been modified, as it is expressed in
well-developed rollovers preserved in the hanging wall of lowangle and high-angle normal faults. In contrast, uplifting and
folding of the sedimentary fill, and reactivation of half-grabens, document the later phase of basin inversion. Footwall
and hanging wall short-cuts associated with reverse and
thrust faults are also documented by the seismic data.
137
2-22: Coalinga anticline, San Joaquin basin, California, U.S.A.

Chris A. Guzofski, Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S.A.
Location: Western San Joaquin basin, California, U.S.A.
Topics: Structural wedges, backthrusting, imbrication
Reserves: 906 Mbbl of hydrocarbons from lower to middle
Miocene Temblor Formation
The Coalinga anticline is located in an active fold and thrust belt in
the western San Joaquin basin, California (Figure 1) (Namson and
Davis, 1988; Stein and Ekstrm, 1992). At the surface the Coalinga
structure is expressed as a southwest-vergent anticline that is defined
by a narrow forelimb with a broad backlimb (Figure 2). We interpret
that this structure developed above a northeast-dipping thrust ramp.
At depth, the anticline is northeast-vergent and structural relief across
the anticline provides evidence that a deeper, southwest-dipping
ramp has uplifted the anticline. Herein, we use these observations to
interpret this structure as a structural wedge, having grown through
multiple stages of fault-bend folding.
Figure 1: Landsat TM image of the Coalinga anticline showing the locations of the
seismic lines used in this study. Locations of wells 1. Pleasant-Valley #1; 2. LeavittHintze #1; and 3. PVF-11X are shown from Meltzer (1989) and Bartow (1990).
Figure 2: Migrated and depth-converted seismic profile with several wells showing formation tops across the Coalinga anticline. The structural relief between the synclines (1
and 2) bounding the anticline (3) provides evidence that one or more southwest-dipping thrust ramps underlie the structure. The asymmetry of the central anticline (3) demonstrates that an additional northeast-dipping thrust ramp underlies the structural crest. The absence of Tertiary deformation east of the Coalinga anticline (beyond this section)
provides evidence that the southwest-dipping fault ramp or detachment does not extend basinward of the Coalinga anticline. This argues for the presence of a structural wedge,
where slip is sent back to the hinterland on the inferred backthrust beneath the Coalinga structure.
138
2-22: Coalinga anticline

We interpret the Coalinga anticline as being comprised primarily of a stack of imbricated structural wedges (Figure 3).
Two structural wedges, with separate dipping forethrust
ramps and a common upper detachment surface forming a
backthrust, generate the gross morphology of the Coalinga
anticline (Figures 3 and 4). The structural relief across the
Coalinga anticline (between Pleasant Valley and the San
Joaquin basin; Figure 3) is due to the accumulation of slip
and uplift on the Coalinga thrust ramp, where the tip of the
wedge is pinned by an active synclinal axial surface (B0).
Similarly, structural relief across fold A4 to A5 in the San
Joaquin basin is due to slip on the San Joaquin thrust ramp
(Figure 4). The prominent forelimb of the Coalinga anticline
(defined by A0 to A1 in Figure 3) records slip on a fault that
has branched off of the upper detachment surface.
Figure 4: Migrated seismic line showing the location of the active synclinal axial
surface (A4) in the San Joaquin basin, which is used to constrain the tip of the
structural wedge associated with the San Joaquin thrust ramp (inset).
Figure 3: Balanced structural interpretation of the Coalinga anticline, in which several imbricated faults generate the main fold. Slip on the Coalinga and San Joaquin ramps generates two
anticlinal fault-bend folds, where slip is sent back to the hinterland on folded backthrusts. The width of the forelimb of the Coalinga structural wedge is constrained by a pair of axial surfaces
(B0 and B1), where the wedge tip is pinned by the active synclinal axial surface (B0). Imbrication of two older and shallower thrusts by the Coalinga wedge is demonstrated by the capture of
fold limbs associated with these older faults by the Coalinga structural wedge. The forelimb of one of these older structures is constrained by axial surfaces C0 and C1. Growth strata within this
kink band indicate that slip on its causative fault occurred at some point between the deposition of the Moreno shale (~ 65 Ma), and the deposition of the Kreyenhagen shale (~ 37 Ma), clearly
before the development of the broad limb (B0-B1) that refolds it. A shallow thrust that branches off the main detachment generates the prominent anticlinal fault-bend fold defined by kink
bands A0 and A1. The dip of this thrust ramp was determined based on the forelimb dip using fault-bend folding theory. However, the observation that the backlimb dips less than the fault
ramp suggests that the backlimb is deforming by shear fault-bend folding mechanisms (see section 1B-4). Deformation of a shear band pinned by axial surface A2 (shaded yellow), leads to a
minor rotation of the backlimb. The location of a regional angular unconformity is shown by yellow arrows. The axis of this unconformity (i.e. where rocks change from horizontal to dipping)
is shown by a dashed yellow line. Formation depths are from Bartow (1990).
139
2-22: Coalinga anticline

Here we present a balanced sequential model of the development of the Coalinga structure (Figure 5).
Figure 5A: Initial geometry of the

Cretaceus (and older?) sedimentary
sequence beneath the Coalinga
structure. The development of a dipping panel beneath the shallow
angular unconformity (shown by
yellow arrows) is possibly related to
slip on an unimaged fault (shown
by queried red dashed line) that
steps up to a local detachment.
Figure 5B: Initiation of slip

(between 65 and 37 Ma) on the
Coalinga ramp makes a structural
wedge involving a detachment and a
backthrust. Slip generates an anticline above the backthrust, with
growth triangles associated with
both the forelimb of the wedge
(defined by axial surfaces C0-C1)
and the forelimb above the upper
detachment/backthrust.
Figure 5C: Initiation of the San

Joaquin thrust ramp and development of the southwest-vergent anticline (defined by axial surfaces A0A1) by slip on the backthrust associated with the nascent San Joaquin
structural wedge. The low angle of
the backlimb of the southwest-verging anticline, relative to the underlying ramp, is due to simple shear
fault-bend folding where e = 61
(see section 1B-4).
Figure 5D: Slip on the Coalinga

thrust ramp generates a structural
wedge (whose forelimb is defined
by axial surfaces B0- B1) that captures and refolds the kink bands
associated with the deformation
modeled in panels B and C. The
backthrusts of the Coalinga wedge
and the San Joaquin wedge merge
at the regional detachment, as the
summed slip is sent back to the
hinterland.
Conclusions:
The Coalinga structure is underlain by two independent southwest-dipping thrust ramps that generate two structural wedges that sole
into a common backthrust/roof thrust.
The Coalinga structural wedge refolds at least two older structures, a Tertiary structural wedge with well-defined growth strata and a
younger southwest-vergent anticline that has accumulated slip from the San Joaquin thrust ramp. While this southwest-vergent anticline
is the most prominent surface feature of the Coalinga structure, slip on the two underlying thrust ramps produce the deeper fold architecture.
140
2-23: Wedge structure, Nias Basin, Sumatra, Indonesia

Peter A. Brennan, Tellumetrics LLC, Sugar Land, Texas, U.S.A.
Location: Nias basin, Sumatra, Indonesia
Topics: Structural wedge, growth structure, inversion
We describe a complex structure located in the Nias basin, which lies between Nias
Island and the southwest coast of Sumatra (Figure 1). Nias Island lies along the presentday plate margin between the Indonesian and Indian Ocean plates. The basin contains
Miocene and younger sedimentary rocks deposited over a basement composed of an
earlier Tertiary subduction complex. The basin underwent a period of extension during
the early and middle Miocene, and a subsequent phase of contraction during the late
Miocene, Pliocene, and Pleistocene. The structure we describe has been structurally
inverted, such that it reflects both extensional and contractional components.
We interpret the structural geometry and kinematics of this anticline using patterns of
syntectonic growth strata, structural relief, and fault cutoffs (Figure 2).
Figure 2: Post-stack, time-migrated and depth converted seismic reflection profile of the Nias basin that images a contractional fault-related fold. The structure
is composed of a monoclinal fold limb that is underlain by a fault, which appears to offset basement and uplift the southern portion of the fold. Two distinct
stratigraphic sections (1 and 2) thicken to the north across the fold limb, suggesting that they are syntectonic (growth) strata.
Figure 1: Map of Sumatra showing the location of the Nias basin.
141
2-23: Structural interpretation and growth section 1
A: Seismic Example: Sumatra, Indonesia
We propose a structural wedge model (Figure 3) to explain the geometry of the structure
and the pattern of growth section 1 (Figure 4).
Based on interpreted fault cut-offs and structural relief, the main thrust ramp beneath the
Nias structure dips to the south (Figure 4A) indicating that the monoclinal fold limb is a
forelimb. The forelimb is bound by a roughly linear synclinal axial surface that extends
upward through growth section 1, and by a curved anticlinal axial surface that has different orientations in growth and pre-growth sections (Figure 4A). Based on this axial surface pattern, we interpret the forelimb as a growth structure developed by kink-band
migration, with an active synclinal axial surface and an inactive anticlinal axial surface
(see section 1A-3). Given the fault dip direction, this growth patterns is inconsisitent with
a simple forelimb fault-bend fold model (Figure 3A), but consistent with a decollement
wedge model (Figure 3B). Thus, we interpret the structure as a decollement wedge
(Figure 4B).
Kinematic models
A: anticlinal fault-bend fold
B: decollement wedge
B: Interpreted section
Figure 3: Balanced kinematic models of an anticlinal fault-bend fold (A) and decollement wedge (B). In model A, the fault-bend fold is
developed above a ramp that flattens to an upper decollement. The anticlinal axial surface is active, and thus linearly extends through pregrowth and growth sections. The synclinal axial surface is inactive, and thus changes orientation at the boundary between growth and pregrowth section (see section 1B-1). In model B, slip on the upper detachment is transferred to a backthrust forming a structural wedge
(Medwedeff, 1989) (see section 1B-6). The synclinal axial surface is active and the anticlinal axial surface is inactive, in contrast to model A.
Thus, simple anticlinal fault-bend folds and structural wedges can be readily distinguished based on patterns of growth strata.
Figure 4: Seismic reflection profile across the Nias basin structure with: A) basic interpretations of the fault
position, axial surface traces, and growth sections; and B) structural interpretation. The geometries of the synclinal and anticlinal axial surface resemble those in Figure 3B, indicating that the structure is a decollement
wedge. In this interpretation, the synclinal axial surface is pinned to the wedge tip, and the backthrust generally
conforms to the bed dips in its hanging wall. This interpretations is consistent with the pattern of growth section
1, but does not yet explain the origins of growth section 2.
142
2-23: Structural interpretation and growth section 2

The structural wedge interpretation presented on the previous page (Figure 4B)
explained the pattern of growth section 1, but did not address the origin and pattern of
growth section 2. Two scenarios may explain this older growth structure. First, the older
growth structure may reflect an early phase of contractional folding above the forethrust, developing as a structural wedge or perhaps a fault-propagation fold.
Alternatively, the early growth structure could represent synrift fill of an extensional half
graben developed by normal motion on the fault. Growth section 2 is middle Miocene in
age, corresponding to a period of regional extension. Thus, we prefer the second scenario to explain the origin of the older growth structure. This implies that the structure
is inverted, with a middle Miocene phase of extension followed by an upper Miocene
phase of contraction. This structural inversion in modeled in Figure 5 and interpreted on
the seismic section in Figure 6.
Interpreted section with inverted normal fault
Kinematic model
Figure 6: Interpreted seismic profile, showing an inverted half graben in the core of the Nias anticline. Growth section 2 is
interpreted as synrift strata, similar to the model shown in Figure 5.
Conclusions:
Nias anticline formed by inversion of a Miocene normal fault and associated half
graben.
Thrust motion on the inverted normal fault is transferred to a backthrust at the
base of the post-rift sequence, forming a structural wedge.
Patterns of folded syntectonic growth strata were used to decipher the inversion history, and to support our kinematic interpretation of this structural
wedge.
Figure 5: Sequential kinematic model (stages 0 through 5) of the development of the Nias anticline. Model 0 shows an incipient normal
fault and active axial surface. Slip on the normal fault (models 12) generates a roll-over panel and half graben, which is filled with synrift
strata equivalent to growth section 2. In model 3, strata are deposited above the half graben after rifting has ceased. In models 4 and 5, the
lower segment of the normal fault is reactivated as a thrust, which propagates up dip and shallows to a detachment at the base of the postrift sequence. Slip is transferred to a backthrust that is parallel to the overlying strata, forming a structural wedge.
143
2-24: Interference Structure, Gulf of Mexico, U.S.A.

Rion H. Camerlo, ChevronTexaco, New Orleans, Louisiana, U.S.A.
Thomas W. Bjerstedt, Minerals Management Service, New Orleans, Louisiana, U.S.A.
Edward F. Benson, NuTec Energy Services, Stafford, Texas, U.S.A.
Location: Perdido fold belt, western Gulf of Mexico, U.S.A.
Topics: Kink-band interference and linkage, mechanical
stratigraphy, kink-fold class detachment folds
The Perdido fold belt (Figure 1) is a deep-water fold belt created by
updip extension and sediment loading on the Texas Gulf Coast. Line
A-A (Figure 2) shows two large anticlines within the Perdido fold belt
that are bounded by tabular bands of angular folded units (kink
bands) along both limbs (Figures 3 and 4). The inner kink bands intersect, producing an interference structure (Figure 5). This structure is
strikingly similar to the model geometry developed by Medwedeff and
Suppe (1997) of a counter-clockwise interference structure, and that
modeled by Mount (1989) and Novoa et al., (1998). The natural structure deviates from this ideal parallel geometry due to the mechanical
stratigraphy of the deforming units. Shortening across the kink bands
(Figure 6), in general, shows two shortening maxima, one to the northeast on the western kink band and one to the southwest on the eastern kink band. The maxima are likely initiation points of the bands
and demonstrate that kink band shortening is acting in relay, wherein the western kink band loses displacement to the south and the
eastern kink band gains displacement to the south. The interference
structure formed in the overlapping zone of the relay. In detail, the
interference structure is a zone of diminished shortening that may be
the result of inhibition of kink band growth in the zone of interference.
The steep shortening gradient northeast of line B-B may result from
the difficulty in forming an interference structure above the weak
unit. A second shortening minima is seen in the western kink band at
line D-D as well as a distinct swing in orientation. These are the result
of linkage of two synthetic (with respect to dip) kink bands during
kink band growth (Line C-C). This is similar to the interaction of
faults, fractures, and folds in plan view. Both kink bands in the structure are more narrow above the interpreted green horizon in Figure 7
than below it, and consequently accommodate less shortening. The
unit between the yellow and green horizon also has appreciable deformation induced thickness changes. This unit is interpreted as a secondary detachment horizon in the lower Eocene (a known detachment level across south Texas).
Figure 1: Perdido fold belt and area of interest for kink-band interference structure, western Gulf of Mexico.
Uninterpreted profile plane vertical seismic section A-A stretched to depth, located in Figure 2. 3-D post-stack
time migrated seismic courtesy of WesternGeco.
144
2-24: Interference structure, Gulf of Mexico, U.S.A.
Figure 2: Map of green horizon on seismic sections.

Dashed blue lines are axial surfaces (kink plane
intersections with the mapped horizon), the
two kink bands discussed in this section (2-24)
are in bold. Contour interval is 200 ft.
Figure 3: Simplified fence diagram of lines A-A
through D-D (Figures 4 and 7). The axial surfaces of the three
kink bands are shown in different colors for clarification.
Figure 4: Profile-plane vertical seismic sections B-B through D-D, uninterpreted and interpreted. Colored dashed lines
are axial surfaces. All normal faults are omitted for simplification. Line C-C shows the linkage of kink band X and kink
band Z. Line B-B shows distortion of the kink bands above the lower Eocene detachment at their intersection point prior
to crossing in line A-A (Figure 7). No vertical exaggeration.
145
2-24: Interference structure,

Gulf of Mexico, U.S.A.
Vertical seismic profile shows interpreted structure resulting from
the interference of two kink bands and it is similar to structures
observed in nature. Displacement gradients along the kink bands in
map view are modified by the interaction of the interfering kink
bands and influenced by the mechanical stratigraphy.
Figure 5: Line drawing of a natural kink-band interference structure in

black Carboniferous slates in the Beara Peninsula, Cork, Ireland, after
Dewey, 1965. Dewey reported disharmonic folding at interference points.
Figure 7: Line A-A interpreted. Dashed blue lines are axial surfaces (kink planes). Kink band annotation follows the naming convention of Medwedeff and Suppe (1997). The two tan colored horizons were added to show details of the kink bands intersection. An additional kink band (labeled 33X11T), and requisite branch points P5 and P6, are deviations from the model
geometry. No vertical exaggeration.
Conclusions:
Figure 6: Color-filled contours of amount of shortening across kink bands, in ft. Total
displacement across both kink bands is shown in red text. Blue arrows indicate the location of measurement locations in addition to those of the cross sections.
The reflection seismic data illuminates megascopic-scale kink bands.

The geometric fold model of kink-band interference agrees well with the observed structure and is a very useful tool in
interpretation.
Appreciable deviations from the geometric model result from effects of the mechanical stratigraphy. Weak layers influence, and may control, the location of kink-band intersections.
Kink bands intersect and interact in relay similar to published examples of faults, folds, and fractures.
146
2-25: End members of gravitational fold and thrust belts

(GFTBs) in the deep waters of Brazil
Pedro Victor Zaln, PETROBRAS/E&P/E&P-CORP/TSP,
Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
Location: Deep waters of Brazil
Topics: Gravitational fault-related folding, growth strata
Gravitational fold and thrust belts (GFTBs) associated to linked extensional-compressional systems occur in the deep waters offshore
Brazil, and show two end members regarding structural and syndepositional styles. One end member, related to longer-lived linked
extensional-compressional systems, is dominated by low rates of sedimentation. Thus, deformation rates are also low, giving rise to fold
belts with growth folds topped by a series of younging- and steppingupward time-transgressive unconformities separating strongly
deformed (below) and non-deformed (above) strata of the same age
(growth strata). This fold belt type is well illustrated by a seismic section from the Par-Maranho Basin, as well as by another seismic line
from the Barreirinhas Basin (Figure 1). The other end member, relat-
Figure 1: Location map of the gravitational fold and thrust belts

(GFTBs) studied in this work. AM = Amazon Mouth Basin, PM = ParMaranho Basin, BA = Barreirinhas Basin, PE = Pelotas Basin.
ed to short-lived, linked extensional-compressional systems, is dominated by high rates of sedimentation. Thus, deformation
rates are also higher, giving rise to very thick, harmonically folded and thrusted sedimentary strata, displaying simpler syngrowth relationships. In this case, thick syn-tectonic packages are deposited in the synclines and thinner (or absent) correlative packages on the anticlines. Time-transgressive unconformities are markedly absent. This type is illustrated by seismic
sections from two major Miocene-Recent progradational sedimentary cones: the Amazon Mouth and the Rio Grande (Figure
1). The four cases presented in this section (2-25) are shale-detached/shale-cored fold belts.
Development of Passive Margins and GFTBs

Continental margins build outward into deep and ultra-deep waters via denudation of the adjoining shields and deposition of
the resulting debris, forming the continental shelves and slopes. The rifted/thinned edge of the continental plates cool exponentially as they move away from the heat source (mid-oceanic ridges) that initiated break-up of the continental plate. These
continuous events create a very unstable situation since large volumes of sediments pile up at the margin of the continental
shelves, in the upper slope, at the same time the whole area is gradually tilting oceanward due to thermal flexural bending.
Large deltaic deposits of major rivers may create similar unstable conditions. Gravity failure occurs and allochtonous masses of sediments slide down the slope, over a ductile lithology that detaches the traveling rocks above from the autochtonous
rocks below. When the frontal parts of the allochton diminish their velocity due either to a decrease in the gradient of such
Figure 2: Depth-migrated seismic section from the Par-Maranho Basin illustrating a complete linked extensional-compressional system. See interpreted section in Figure 3.
147
2-25: GFTBs in the deep waters of Brazil

detachment zone or to a physical barrier (commonly a volcanic
edifice) the incoming allochtons collide and strong contraction/compression occurs.
The sliding of huge masses of recently deposited, slightly
indurated sedimentary rocks takes place along well defined,
seismically evident, closely spaced detachment zones, nucleated in ductile beds with regional distribution; salt or thick
laminated shales. The detachment zones provide the linkage
between the extensional and compressional provinces. When
in significant volumes, the ductile beds may be involved in the
folding, giving rise to huge diapir-nucleated folds. The nature
of the detachment zone is the main factor determining the
structural style of the associated GFTB. They may be of two
strikingly different types: (a) salt-detached/salt-cored fold
belts, e.g. the Perdido and Mississippi Fan fold belts (GOM)
(Trudgill et al., 1999), and (b) shale-detached/shale-cored foldbelts, e.g. the Mexican Ridges (GOM) (Trudgill et al., 1999),
Amazon Cone (Silva and Maciel, 1998) and Niger Delta
(Hermann, 1998) fold belts. The failure occurs when vertical
stresses due to overburden are weakened in relation to subhorizontal stresses due to several possibilities, including overpressure in shales (due to petroleum generation or any other
classical overpressure mechanism) or ductile flow in salt.
Shear stresses develop parallel to the slightly dipping bedding
and overcome the vertical stresses.
The translational domain is a predominantly non-deformed region that passively traveled over the detachment zone. Weak
arching may affect the rocks present in this area. Usually, increasing amounts of detachment folding occur oceanwards/basinwards, marking the passage of the translational domain into the compressional realm.
The compressional domain may present spectacular deformation, with all kinds of reverse and thrust faults and fault-related folding (detachment, fault-propagation, and fault-bend folding). When detached on shales, the structural styles, the structural relief, and the overall dimensions may resemble those found in truly orogenic belts (Zaln, 1998). When salt is the lubricant, or is otherwise involved, deformation is more complex and salt tongues and canopies (Rowan et al., 2001) or nappes
(Hudec et al., 2001) develop. The specific name gravitational fold and thrust belts (GFTBs) has been applied to such entities. Zaln (1999) studied some Brazilian GFTBs in detail and devised a tripartite structural model that predicts an orderly
succession, from the internides to the foreland, of detachment folding, followed by closely spaced high-angle reverse faults
and associated tight fault-propagation folds (also referred to as toe thrusts), ending in more widely spaced, low-angle rampflat thrusts with associated more open fault-bend folding. Important oil discoveries have been achieved in these compressional provinces in deep waters off GOM, Nigeria, Angola, and Brazil.
The dimensions of these three domains may vary greatly. Usually the extensional and compressional domains are the widest
but it is very difficult to exactly balance the amount of extension updip with the amount of contraction downdip, because of
the details of the severe deformation that is usually non-resolvable by seismic data. Since they cover huge areas, on the order
of several thousand square kilometers, it is difficult to have them all covered by 3-D seismic, and it is not unusual that extension and compression are divided into two or three belts of deformation.
These deformed masses of allochtonous rocks are referred to

as linked extensional-compressional systems and have
been found in the deep/ultra-deep water regions of most continental margins around the world. It is easily understood, and
very well displayed in modern seismic sections, that these systems are composed of three major tectonic domains, each one
presenting different and peculiar deformation (Figure 3).
The extensional domain comprises highly strained subsided
terrains at the upper continental slope, dominated by arcuated
listric normal faults that sole out at the detachment level. Major
listric faults present significant associated rollover anticlines
and growth depositional wedges that thicken from the crest of
the anticline towards the listric fault. Subsidiary listric normal
faults, antithetic to the major downdip listric faults, are also
abundant, as well as crestal fracturing/faulting in the rollover
anticlines.
Figure 3: Depth-migrated seismic section from the Par-Maranho GFTB. The major components of a linked extensional-compressional system are clearly visible: The extensional, translational, and compressional (GFTB) domains and the linking detachment zone.
148

Petroleum Potential of the GFTBs
The potential of these compressional structures for petroleum exploration seems to be very high. Structural closures are usually four-way
and on the order of tens of square kilometers, and vertical reliefs are on
the order of hundreds of meters. Common reservoir targets include vertically stacked, laterally confined, porous turbidite sandstones, deposited in meandering channels, that are encased within shales in the hearts
of the anticlines. Detachment seems to preferentially take place in
weakened, highly pressurized organic-rich shales located in oil generation windows. Reverse/thrust faults that splay upwards from the
detachment zones into the folds serve as migrating routes for the
ascending, released hydrocarbons. When salt is the detachment media,
salt windows are required to allow migration from sub-salt source
rocks. Traps are the fault-related folds and petroleum fields in deep
water GOM, Nigeria, Angola and Brazil have been found in all three
major types of contractional fault-related folds (detachment, fault-propagation and fault-bend anticlines).
Figure 4: Detailed view of the

GFTB shown in Figure 3, displaying the internal architecture and
structural styles of the compressional domain. Notice predominance of fault-bend folding in the
more external part of the fold belt
(yellow arrows), fault-propagation
folding in the middle part (pink
arrows), and detachment folding in
the more internal zone of the fold
belt (green arrow). Also notice
onlapping pattern and thinning
upward of sub-horizontal sedimentary packages deposited upon the
frontal (right) part of the GFTB, and
the thinning upward and deformed
(folded) nature of the depth-equivalent packages on the back (left)
portion of the GFTB.
GFTBs with Growth Folding

When the process of gravity sliding/contraction is long-lasting (2050
m.y.) and takes place in areas with low rates of sedimentation, growth
folding occurs. Since GFTBs develop in exclusively submarine environments, they are never subaerially exposed, sedimentation takes place
concomitantly with the compressional deformation leading to the deposition of syntectonic growth strata that thin up onto the upper parts of
the fold belt, in the same way the growth wedges develop in the downthrown sides of the normal faults in the extensional domains.
Medwedeff (1989) unraveled complex growth stratigraphic relationships between coeval sediments deposited in the forelimb and backlimb of a fault-bend fold in California. Numerous wells and seismic data
allowed the author to deduce that syntectonic sedimentary strata onlap
a time-transgressive unconformity on the forelimb but are folded below
the unconformity on the backlimb.
The same mechanism seems to be applicable to GFTBs in the Brazilian
Equatorial Atlantic margin, such as the Par-Maranho and Barreirinhas
GFTBs. Figure 3 shows a depth-migrated seismic section from the ParMaranho Basin, where a complete, fully developed linked extensionalcompressional system can be seen.
Figure 5: Geological
interpretation of section
displayed in Figure 4.
Detachment zone and
reverse/thrust faults are
shown. Two reflectors (aorange and b-light green)
were tracked within the
interpreted pre-tectonic
section, and three reflectors
(c-blue, d-purple, and edark green) were tracked
within the interpreted
growth section, which is
also highlighted by a gray
transparent mask.
Stepping- and youngingupward unconformities (U)
are displayed in yellow.
149

Within the GFTB fault-bend folds are concentrated in the frontal
part while fault-propagation folds occur in the middle part (Figure
4). Detachment folds occur in the innermost part of the fold belt.
Three reflectors can be tentatively correlated across four time-transgressive unconformities (dark yellow) (Figure 5). These reflectors
(dark green, purple, and blue) are interpreted to encompass the
growth strata associated to this GFTB. They thin onto the highest
topography of the fold belt and thicken away into the lower surrounding areas. In contrast, lower beds involved in the compressional deformation (light green and orange reflectors) show constant thickness throughout the fold belt and are interpreted as pregrowth strata.
Figure 6: Time-migrated seismic section

from the Barreirinhas GFTB. Two major
open folds associated to thrust faults (red
arrows) can be clearly seen and are covered by sub-horizontal onlapping sedimentary packages (yellow arrows).
The geometry of the deformation in this GFTB suggests that the

folding and uplift of the thrust strata was a long-lived process. Since
there is a major time-transgressive unconformity (as well as three
minor ones) that separates the non-deformed strata above from the
deformed strata below (Figure 5) it is plausible that the rates of sedimentation were low. We estimate that the time span involved in the
sedimentation of the growth strata is around 45 m.y. Deformation
started slightly below reflector c (Figure 5) (roughly Late Maastrichtian) and ended slightly above reflector e (Figure 5) (roughly Late
Oligocene) (sedimentation rate about 3540 m/m.y). Thus, the deformed strata were left exposed at the sea bottom several times and
submarine erosion (currents) could take place.
Figure 7: Geological interpretation

of section displayed in Figure 6.
Detachment zone and two major
thrust faults are shown in the center
and right portions (external portion
of foldbelt) of the section. The two
major anticlines are interpreted as
fault-bend folds. Active (blue) and
inactive (pink) axial surfaces are
shown in each fold. Towards the
more internal parts of the fold belt,
deformation is more complex, consisting of tight higher-angle reverse
faults and associated folding (suggestive of fault-propagation folds).
Deformed strata are topped by a
major and a secondary upward
climbing unconformity (yellow).
Interpreted growth section is highlighted by a gray transparent mask.
Depth scale is valid for the central
portion of the seismic line.
In a less spectacular manner, the Barreirinhas GFTB display faultbend folds covered by a major unconformity (there is also a minor
associated stepping-upward unconformity), upon which sub-horizontal beds onlap and thin upwards (Figures 6 and 7). The geometry suggests that the same growth fault-bend folding mechanism
described in the Par-Maranho GFTB may work here.
The same pattern of a series of younging- and stepping-upward timetransgressive unconformities separating non-deformed onlapping
strata above from thrusted and folded strata below can be seen in
several other GFTBs in Brazil (e.g. Touros, in the Potiguar Basin;
Zaln, 2001) and elsewhere in the world (for instance, in the
Krishna-Godavari Basin, in India, Stuart and Hickman, 2001). We suggest that these patterns are diagnostic of gravity sliding/contraction
accompanied by growth folding in areas dominated by low rates of
deformation and sedimentation.
150

GFTBs Without Growth Folding
Some GFTBs do not display the complicated pattern of time-transgressive
unconformities as described above. They involve thick packages of sediments
that are folded and thrusted harmonically. Syntectonic sedimentation seems
to follow a simpler pattern of being confined to intervening synclines between
anticlines. In this case, the syncline packages typically thicken downward
towards the depocenter and thin upward towards the anticlines. Such is the
case in the GFTBs related to the Amazon Mouth (Figures 8, 9, and 10), to the
Rio Grande Cone (Figures 11, 12, and 13) and to the Niger delta, where all
allochtonous sediments are harmonically folded and thrusted up out in the
sea bottom. They are situated in front of young (Miocene) and huge deltas
where enormous piles of sediments accumulated very quickly while gravity
sliding was taking place during the same short time.
Figure 9: Detailed view of the GFTB shown in

Figure 8, displaying the internal architecture and
structural styles of the compressional domain.
Tight fault-propagation folds associated with
reverse faults dominate the external (right) part
of the fold belt, while detachment folds nucleated by shale diapirs constitute the dominant style
in the internal (left) part of the fold belt.
The pattern of harmonically folded and thrusted sediments, with thick syn-tectonic packages in the synclines (Figures 10 and 13) and thinner correlative
packages on the anticlines, and more importantly, the absence of time-transgressive unconformities, are here interpreted as being diagnostic of gravity
sliding/contraction in areas dominated by high rates of deformation and sedimentation.
Figure 10: Geological interpretation of section

displayed in Figure 9. Detachment zone, reverse
faults, and shale diapirs are shown. Growth
strata (highlighted by a gray transparent mask)
are ponded in synclines, thinning upward
towards the flanks of anticlines. Notice the
remarkable absence of extensive time-transgressive unconformities throughout the whole sedimentary section, in clear contrast with the sections illustrated in Figures 5 and 7. Only a very
minor unconformity (yellow) can be seen in the
easternmost flank of the fold belt.
Figure 8: Time-migrated seismic section from the Amazon Mouth GFTB. Extensional domain is only partly shown.
Translational and compressional domains are fully displayed.
151

Conclusions:
Figure 12: Detailed view of the

GFTB shown in Figure 11, displaying
the internal architecture and structural styles of the compressional
domain. A train of harmonically folded anticlines dominate the fold belt.
Fault-propagation folds associated to
reverse faults are preponderant in the
external (right) part of the fold belt,
while a detachment anticline, partly
ruptured by reverse faults, can be
seen in the internal (center) part of
the fold belt.
Gravitational fold and thrust belts associated to extensional-compressional

systems linked via detachment zones nucleated in shales, in the Brazilian deep
and ultra-deep waters, show two end members as related to structural styles
and syntectonic sedimentation.
GFTBs developed in continental margins dominated by low rates of sedimentation/deformation display a zonation of fault-bend folding in the more external parts passing through fault-propagation folding and to detachment folding
as one moves backwards into the internal zones. Stepping-upward time-transgressive unconformities cover the folded/thrusted assemblages and are
onlapped in the frontal parts of the folds by sub-horizontal growth strata,
whose time-equivalent packages are involved in the compressional deformation below the unconformities in the back limbs of the innermost folds.
Figure 13: Geological interpretation

of section displayed in Figure 12.
Detachment zone and reverse faults
are shown. Growth strata (highlighted by a gray transparent mask) are
ponded in synclines, thinning
upward towards the flanks of anticlines. Notice the absence of extensive time-transgressive unconformities throughout the whole sedimentary section, in clear contrast with the
sections illustrated in Figures 5 and
7. Only a very minor unconformity
(yellow) can be seen in the easternmost flank of the fold belt, similarly
to the Amazon Mouth example
(Figure 10).
Figure 11: Time-migrated seismic section from the Rio Grande Cone. Extensional domain is only partly shown.
Translational domain is practically non-existent. Compressional domain is fully illustrated.
152

Conclusions:
(cont.)
GFTBs developed in areas dominated by high rates of sedimentation/deformation, usually associated to major
deltas (as is the case in the examples shown in the
Amazon Mouth and Rio Grande Cone), display intense
folding, dominated by detachment and fault-propagation
folding. These structures typically have very high structural relief, and seafloor expression. The intense, rapid,
and continuous process of sedimentary loading/sliding/
contraction does not allow the development of unconformities chiseling the higher parts of the foldbelt. Consequently, there are practically no sub-horizontal strata covering the deformed rocks. Syntectonic sediments are concentrated in the synclines, situated between the intervening trains of anticlines.
The major implications for such differences in the depositional/structural styles of the growth strata are in the location of the turbidite beds and the related hydrocarbon
traps. In the first case, syntectonic turbidites should be present as onlapping strata (stratigraphic traps) above unconformities in the frontal parts of the GFTB and in the folds
(structural traps) in the internal parts of the GFTB, below
unconformities. In the second case, all syntectonic turbidite
deposits will tend to be channelized bodies that are thicker
in the synclines and on the flanks of the anticlines (mixed
stratigraphic/structural traps), and thinner or absent up on
the crests. Eventually, inverted depocenters due to shifting
of deformation locus, from the outer to the inner parts, may
uplift such turbidite channels into the core of younger anticlines. Pretectonic turbidites may be present in the core of
folds anywhere in the GFTB.
Acknowledgments
I would like to thank Petrobras for the permission to publish this work and my colleagues Haroldo M. Ramos, Sergio
Rogerio P. da Silva, Alvaro Henrique A. de Castro, Desiderio
P. Silveira, Sergio de O. Guimares, and Marcia de B.
Pimentel for their help in the processing, interpretation, and
drawing of the seismic sections.
153
References
Allmendinger, R. W., 1998, Inverse and forward numerical modeling of
trishear fault-propagation folds: Tectonics, v. 17, no. 4, p. 640656.
Apotria, T. G., and M. S. Wilkerson, 2002, Seismic expression and kinematics of a fault-related fold termination: Rosario structure, Maracaibo Basin, Venezuela, in M. S. Wilkerson, M. P. Fischer, and T. G.
Apotria, eds., Fault Related Folding: The Transition from 2-D to 3-D:
Journal of Structural Geology Special Issue, v. 24, no. 4, p. 671687.
Aymard, R., L. Pimentel, P. Eitz, P. Lopz, A. Chaouch, J. Navarro, J.
Mijares, and J. G. Pereira, 1990, Geological Integration and Evaluation of Northern Monagas, Eastern Venezuelan Basin: in J. Brooks,
ed., Classic Petroleum Provinces: Geological Society of London,
Blackwell, Sp., Pub, no. 50, p. 3753.
Bischke, R. E., M. Morales, B. A. Ascanio, D. C. Metzner, and P. Verrall,
1997, The recognition of a duplex with imbricate thrusting in the
Furrial-Tejero Trend, North Monagas area, Venezuela: AAPG Abst.
p. A15.
Bally, A. W., P. L. Gordy, and G. A. Stewart, 1966, Structure, seismic
data, and orogenic evolution of southern Canadian Rocky Mountains: Canadian Society of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, v. 14, p.
337381.
Bartow, J. A., 1990, A summary of the Cenozoic stratigraphy and geologic history of the Coalinga region, Central California, in The
Coalinga, California, earthquake of May 2, 1983, M. J. Rymer, and
W. L. Ellsworth, eds., U. S. Geological Survey Professional Paper,
Report: P 1487, p. 312.
Boyer, S. E., and D. Elliot, 1982, Thrust systems: AAPG Bulletin, v. 66,
p. 11961230.
Carnevali, J., 1988, Geology of new giant oil fields in mountain front of
northeastern Venezuela: Proceedings, 28th International Geological
Congress, Washington, 919 July, v. 1, p. 12401241.
Connors, C. D., D. B. Denson, G. Kristiansen, and D. M. Angstadt, 1998,
Compressive Anticlines of the Mid-outer Slope, Central Niger Delta
(abs.): AAPG International Conf., AAPG Bulletin, v. 82, no. 10, p.
18831984
Cooper, M. A., F. T. Addison, R. Alvarez, M. Coral, R. H. Graham, A. B.
Hayward, S. Howe, J. Martinez, J. Naar, R. Peas, A. J. Pulham, and
A. Taborda, 1995, Basin development and tectonic history of the
Llanos basin, Eastern Cordiller, and Middle Magdalena valley,
Colombia: AAPG Bulletin, v. 79, p. 14211443.
Cooper, M. A., and G. D. Williams, Inversion Tectonics: Geological Society Special Publication 44, p. 375.
Corredor, F., J. H. Shaw, and F. Bilotti, 2002, Imbricate Shear Fault-bend
Folding in the Deep-water Niger Delta, [abs}: GSA Annual Meeting,
Denver, Colorado, U.S.A.
Corredor, F., J. H. Shaw, and F. Bilotti, 2001, Modeling of Complex
Imbricate Thrust Systems Using Growth Strata in the Deep-Water

Niger Delta, [abs]: AAPG Annual Convention Program, Denver, Colorado, U.S.A.
Crawford, M. F., W. G. Brown, N. Donovan, and K. Morgan, 1990,
Remote sensing techniques applied to structural geology and oil
exploration in south-central Oklahoma: Geological Society of America Field Trip Guidebook, 116 p.
Crouch, J. K., and J. Suppe, 1993, Late Cenozoic tectonic evolution of
the Los Angeles basin and inner California borderland: A model for
core complex-like crustal extension: Geological Society of America
Bulletin, v. 105, p. 14151434.
Dahlstrom, C. D. A., 1969, Balanced cross sections: Canadian Journal of
Earth Sciences, v. 6, p. 743757.
Dahlstrom, C. D. A., 1970, Structural geology in the eastern margin of
the Canadian Rocky Mountains: Bulletin of Canadian Petroleum
Geology, v. 17, p. 326346.
Dahlstrom, C. D. A.,1990, Geometric constraints derived from the law
of conservation volume and applied to evolutionary models for
detachment folding: AAPG Bulletin, v. 74, p. 336344.
Dengo, G., 1985, Mid-America: Tectonic setting for the Pacific margin
from southern Mexico to northwestern Colombia, in A. E. M. Nairn,
and F. G. Stehli, eds., The ocean basins and margins, v. 7: New York,
Plenum Press, p. 123180.
Dengo, C. A., and M. L. Covey, 1993, Structure of the Eastern Cordillera
of Columbia: AAPG Bulletin, v. 77, p. 13151337.
Dewey, J. F., 1965, Nature and origin of kink bands: Tectonophysics,
1/6, p. 459494.
Diegel, F. A., J. F. Karlo, D. C. Schuster, R. C. Shoup, and P. R. Tauvers,
1995, Cenozoic structural evolution and tectono-stratigraphic framework of the northern Gulf Coast continental margin, in M. P. A. Jackson, D. G. Roberts, and S. Snelson, eds., Salt Tectonics: a Global Perspective: AAPG Memoir 65, p. 109151.
Eisenstadt, G., and D. G. DePaor, 1987, Alternative model of thrust fault
propagation, Geology, v. 15, p. 630633.
Elliott, D., 1976, The motion of thrust sheets: Journal of Geophysical
Research, v. 81, p. 949963.
Epard, J.-L., and R. H. Groshong, 1993, Excess area and depth to
detachment: AAPG Bulletin, v. 77, p. 12911302.
Epard, J.-L., and R. H. Groshong, 1995, Kinematic model of detachment
folding including limb rotation, fixed hinges, and layer-parallel
strain: Tectonophysics, v. 247 (1-4), p. 85103.
Erslev, E. A., 1991, Trishear fault-propagation folding: Geology, v. 19,
no. 6, p. 617620.
Gutierrez, R., 1986, Nuevas espectativas en la subcuenca de Maturn,
Cuenca Oriental de Venezuela. ARPEL, LX, RANE, tomo II Lima Per.
Hall, S. H., 2000, The development of large-scale sub-salt structures in
the deep-water western Gulf of Mexico [abs.]: AAPG Annual Convention Official Program, p. A62A63.
Hamilton, W., 1979, Tectonics of the Indonesian region: United States
Geological Survey Professional Paper 1078, 345 p.
Hardeman, W. D., 1966, Geologic Map of Tennessee, Scale 1:250,000:
State of Tennessee, Department of Conservation, Division of Geology.
Hardy, S., and M. Ford, 1997, Numerical modeling of trishear faultpropagation folding and associated growth strata: Tectonics, v. 16,
no. 5, p. 841854.
Hardy, S., and J. Poblet, 1994, Geometric and numerical model of progressive limb rotation in detachment folds: Geology, v. 22, p. 371
374.
Hardy, S., and J. Poblet, 1995, The velocity description of deformation,
Paper 2: Sediment geometries associated with fault-bend and faultpropagation folds: Marine and Petroleum Geology, v. 12, p. 165176.
Hardy, S., J. Poblet, K. McClay, and D. Waltham, 1996, Mathematical
modeling of growth strata associated with fault-related fold structures, in Modern developments in structural interpretation, Validation and modeling, Buchanan, P. G., and D. A. Nieuwland, eds.: Geological Society of London Special Publication no. 99, p. 265282.
Harris, L. D., and R. C. Milici, 1977, Characteristics of thin-skinned style
of deformation in the southern Appalachians, and potential hydrocarbon traps: United States Geological Survey Professional
Paper 1018, 40 p.
Hayward, A. B. and R. H. Graham, 1989, Some geometrical characteristics of inversion, in M. A. Cooper, and G. D. Williams, eds., Inversion
Tectonics: Geological Society Special Publication 44, p. 1740.
Hermann, L., 1998, Deep offshore West Niger Delta slope, Nigeria:
Structural styles and hydrocarbon reservoirs: AAPG International
Conference and Exhibition Extended Abstracts Volume, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, p. 1819.
Hudec, M. R., M. P. A. Jackson, L. F. Binga, J. C. da Silva, R. Fraenkl, and
W. Sikkema, 2001, Regional restoration in the offshore Kwanza
Basin, Angola: Linked zones of extension, translation, and contraction: AAPG Annual Convention Official Program Book and CD-ROM,
Denver, Colorado, U.S.A., June, p. A95.
Hyndman, R. D., G. D. Spence, T. Yuan, and E. E. Davis, 1994, Regional
geophysics and structural framework of the Vancouver Island margin accretionary prism: Proceeds of the Ocean Drilling Program,
Part A: Initial Reports, v. 146, p. 399419.
Jamison, W. R., 1987, Geometric analysis of fold development in overthrust terranes: Journal of Structural Geology, v. 9, p. 207219.
Lang, R. C., 1957, The Criner Hills: a key to the geologic history of
southern Oklahoma: Ardmore Geological Society Guidebook
Criner Hills Field Conference, p. 1825.
Mastoris, S., 1989, 3-D seismic interpretation techniques define shallow gas sand reservoirs: Oil and Gas Journal, v. 87, p. 6973.
154
References (Cont.)
Medwedeff, D. A., 1985, Lateral terminations of fault-related folds: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs 17, p. 661.
Medwedeff, D. A., 1988, Structural analysis and tectonic significance of
Late-Tertiary and Quaternary compressive growth folding, San
Joaquin Valley, California: Ph.D. Thesis, Princeton University,
Princeton, New Jersey, U.S.A. 184 p.
Medwedeff, D. A., 1989, Growth fault-bend folding at southeast Lost
Hills, San Joaquin Valley, California: AAPG Bulletin, v. 73, p. 5467.
Medwedeff, D. A., 1992, Geometry and kinematics of an active, laterally propagating wedge thrust, Wheeler Ridge, California, in S. Mitra
and G. Fisher, eds., Structural Geology of Fold and Thrust Belts,
John Hopkins University Press. p. 328.
Medwedeff, D. A. and J. Suppe, 1997, Multibend fault-bend folding:
Journal of Structural Geology, 19, p. 279292.
Meltzer, A., 1989, Crustal structure and tectonic evolution: Central California, Ph.D. thesis, Rice University, Houston, Texas, U.S.A.
Mitra, S., 1993, Geometry and kinematic evolution of inversion structures: AAPG Bulletin, v. 77, p. 11591191.
Mitra, S., and Q. T. Islam, 1994, Experimental (clay) models of inversion structures: Tectonophysics, v. 230, p. 211222.
Molina, A., 1992, Rosario Field, Venezuela, Maracaibo Basin, Zulia
State, in N. H. Foster and E. A. Beaumont, eds.: AAPG Treatise of
Petroleum Geology, Atlas of Oil and Gas Fields, Structural Traps VI,
p. 293304.
Moore, G. F., D. E. Karig, T. H. Shipley, A. Taira, P. L. Stoffa, and W. T.
Wood, 1991, Structural framework of the ODP Leg 131 area, Nankai
Trough: Proceedings of the Ocean Drilling Program, Part A: Initial
Reports, v. 131, p. 1520.
Moore, G. F., A. Taira, S. Kuramoto, T. H. Shipley, and N. L. Bangs, 1999,
Strucutural setting of the 1999 U.S.-Japan Nankai Trough 3-D seismic
reflection survey: EOS, Transactions of the American Geophysical
Union v. 80, p. F569.
Moore, G. F., et al., 2002, Data report: Structural setting of the Leg 190
Muroto transect, in G. F. Moore, A. Taira, and A. Klaus, et al.: Proceedings of the Ocean Drilling Program, Initial Reports, v. 190,
http://www-odp.tamu.edu/publications/190_IR/chap_02/chap_02.
htm (accessed July 19, 2004).
Morgan, J. K., and D. E. Karig, 1995, Kinematics and a balanced and
restored cross-section across the toe of the eastern Nankai accretionary prism: Journal of Structural Geology, 17, p. 3145.
Mount, V., 1989, State of stress in California and a seismic structural
analysis of the Perdido fold belt, Northwest Gulf of Mexico: Ph.D.
dissertation, Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey, U.S.A.
Mount, V. S., J. Suppe, and S. C. Hook, 1990, A forward modeling strategy for balanced cross sections: AAPG Bulletin, v. 74, no. 5, p.
521531.
Namson, J., and T. L. Davis, 1988, A structural transect of the western
Transverse Ranges, California: Implications for lithospheric kinematics and seismic risk evaluation: Geology, v. 16, p. 675679.
Narr, W., and J. Suppe, 1994, Kinematics of basement-involved compressive structures: American Journal of Science, 294, v. 802860.
Nicholson, C., C. Sorlien, and M. Legg, 1993, Crustal imaging and
extreme Miocene extension of the Inner California Continental Borderland: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v.
25, p. A418.
Novoa, E., J. Suppe, and J. H. Shaw, 2000, Inclined-shear restoration of
growth folds: AAPG Bulletin, v. 84, no. 6, p. 787804.
Novoa, E., V. Mount, and J. Suppe, 1998, Map-view interference of monoclinal folds: Journal of Structural Geology, v. 20, no. 4, p. 339353.
Parnaud, F., Y. Gou, J. C. Pascual, I. Truskowski, O. Gallango, and H.
Passalacqua, 1995, Petroleum geology of the central part of the
eastern Venezuela basin, in A. J. Tankard, R. Suarez S., and H. J.
Welsink, eds., Petroleum basins of South America: AAPG Memoir 62,
p. 741756.
Paterson, M. S., and L. E. Weiss, 1966, Experimental deformation and
folding in phyllite: Geological Society of America Bulletin, 77, p.
343374.
Peel, F. J., 2001, Emplacement, inflation, and folding of an extensive
allochthonous salt sheet in the late Mesozoic (ultra-deepwater Gulf
of Mexico) [abs.]: AAPG Annual Convention.
Peel, F. J., C. J. Travis, and J. R. Hossack, 1995, Genetic structural
provinces and salt tectonics of the Cenozoic offshore U.S. Gulf of
Mexico: A preliminary analysis, in M. P. A. Jackson, D. G. Roberts,
and S. Snelson, eds., Salt Tectonics: a Global Perspective: AAPG
Memoir 65, p. 153175.
Poblet, J., K. McClay, F. Storti, and J. A. Muoz, 1997, Geometries of
syntectonic sediments associated with single layer detachment
folds: Journal of Structural Geology, v. 19, p. 369381.
Price, R. A., 1981, The Cordilleran foreland thrust and fold belt in the
southern Canadian Rocky Mountains, in K. R. McClay, and N. J.
Price, eds., Thrust and Nappe Tectonics: Geological Society of London, Special Publication no. 9, p. 427448.
Prieto, R., and G. Valdes, 1990, El Furrial Oil Field a New Giant an Old
Basin: Abstract.
Rich, J. L., 1934, Mechanics of low-angle overthrust faulting as illustrated by Cumberland Thrust Block, Virginia, Kentucky and Tennessee: AAPG Bulletin, v. 18, p. 16841696.
Rivero, C., J. H. Shaw, and K. Mueller, 2000, Oceanside and Thirtymile

Bank blind thrusts: Implications for earthquake hazards in coastal
southern California: Geology, v. 28, p. 891894.
Roure, F., J. Carnevali, Y. Gou, and T. Subieta, 1994, Geometry and kinematics of the North Monagas thrust belt (Venezuela): Marine and Petroleum Geology 1994, v. 11, no. 3, p. 347362.
Roure, F., B. Colletta, B. DeToni, D. Loureiro, H. Passalacqua, and Y. Gou,
1997, Within-plate deformations in the Maracaibo and East Zulia
Basins, Western Venezuela: Marine and Petroleum Geology, v. 14, p.
139163.
Rowan, M. G., 1997, Three-dimensional geometry and evolution of a segmented detachment fold, Mississippi Fan foldbelt, Gulf of Mexico:
Journal of Structural Geology, v. 19, p. 463480.
Rowan, M. G., A. Leibold, A. Maccagni, and G. Valenti, 2001,
Allochthonous salt, contractional folds, and turtle structures of the
Louisiana deepwater province [abs.]: AAPG Annual Convention Official Program, v. 10, p. A173.
Rowan, M. G., and R. Linares, 2000, Fold evolution matrices and axial surface analysis of fault-bend folds: Application to the Medina anticline,
eastern Cordillera, Colombia: AAPG Bulletin, v. 84, no. 6, p. 741764.
Rowan, M. G., F. J. Peel, and B. C. Vendeville, 2001, Gravity-driven fold
belts on passive margins: AAPG Annual Convention Official Program
Book and CD-ROM, Denver, Colorado, U.S.A., June, p. A174.
Rowan, M. G., F. J. Peel, and B. C. Vendeville, 2004, Gravity-driven fold
belts on passive margins, in K. R. McClay, ed., Thrust tectonics and
hydrocarbon systems: AAPG Memoir 82, p. 157182.
Rowan, M. G., B. D. Trudgill, and J. C. Fiduk, 2000, Deep-water, salt-cored
fold belts: Lessons from the Mississippi Fan and Perdido foldbelts,
northern Gulf of Mexico, in W. Mohriak and M. Talwani, eds., Atlantic
Rifts and Continental Margins: American Geophysical Union Geophysical Monograph 115, p. 173191.
Salvini, F., F. Storti, and K. McClay, 2001, Self-determining numerical
modeling of compressional fault-bend folding: Geology, v. 29, p.
839842.
Shaw, J. H., F. Bilotti, and P. Brennan, 1999, Patterns of imbricate thrusting: Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 111, no. 7, p. 11401154.
Shaw, J. H., S. C. Hook, and J. Suppe, 1994, Structural trend analysis by
axial surface mapping: AAPG Bulletin, v. 78, p. 700721.
Shaw, J. H., S. C. Hook, and J. Suppe, 1996, Structural trend analysis by
axial surface mapping: Reply, v. 80/5, p. 780787.
Shaw, J. H., S. C. Hook, and B. Satrio, 1997, Complex structural reactivation defined by growth strata: AAPG Annual Meeting Abstracts, v.
6, p. 106.
155
References (Cont.)
Shaw, J. H., E. Novoa, and C. Connors, 2004, Structural controls on
growth stratigraphy in contractional fault-related folds, in K. R.
McClay, ed., Thrust tectonics and hydrocarbon systems: AAPG
Memoir 82, p. 400412.
Shaw J. H., and J. Suppe, 1996, Earthquake hazards of active blindthrust faults under the central Los Angeles basin, California: Journal
of Geophysical Research, v. 101, p. 86238642.
Shaw, J. H., and J. Suppe, 1994, Active faulting and growth folding in
the eastern Santa Barbara Channel, California: Bulletin of Geological
Society of America, v. 106, p. 607626.
Silva, S. R., and R. R. Maciel, 1998, Foz do Amazonas Basin hydrocarbon system: AAPG International Conference and Exhibition Extended Abstracts Volume, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, p. 480481.
Stein, R. S., and G. Ekstrm, 1992, Sesmicity and Geometry of a 110km-long blind thrust fault, 2: Synthesis of the 19821985 California
earthquake sequence: Journal of Geophysical Research, 97, p.
48654883.
Stewart, K. G., and W. Alvarez, 1991, Mobile hinge kinking in layered
rock sand models: Journal of Structural Geology, 13, p. 243259.
Storti, F., and J. Poblet, 1997, Growth stratal architectures associated
with decollement folds and fault-propagation folds: Inferences on
fold kinematics: Tectonophysics, 282, p. 353373.
Stuart, C. J., and R. G. Hickman, 2001, Tertiary linked extensional and
compressional faults and sedimentation in the Krishna-Godavari
Basin, India: AAPG Annual Convention Official Program Book and
CD-ROM, Denver, Colorado, U.S.A., June, p. A193.
Suppe, J., 1983, Geometry and kinematics of fault-bend folding: American Journal of Science, v. 283, p. 684721.
Suppe, J., 1985, Principles of Structural Geology: Englewood Cliffs, New
Jersey, U.S.A., Prentice-Hall, 537 p.
Suppe, J., and D. A. Medwedeff, 1990, Geometry and kinematics of faultpropagation folding, Ecolg. Geol. Helv., v. 83, p. 409454.
Suppe, J., G. T. Chou, and S. C. Hook, 1992, Rates of folding and faulting determined from growth strata, in K. R. McClay, ed., Thrust tectonics: London, Chapman, and Hall, p. 105121.
Suppe, J., F. Sbat, J. A. Muoz, J. Poblet, E. Roca, and J. Vergs, 1997,
Bed-by-bed growth by kink band migration: Sant Lloren de Morunys, Eastern Pyrenees: Journal of Structural Geology, v. 19, p.
443461.
Suppe, J., C. Connors, and Y. Zhang, 2004, Shear fault-bend folding, in
K. R. McClay, ed., Thrust tectonics and hydrocarbon systems: AAPG
Memoir 82, p. 303323.
Talukdar S., O. Gallango, and A. Ruggiero, 1988, Generation and migration of oil in the Maturin Subbasin Eastern Venezuela Basin. Organic Geochemistry, 13, p. 537547.
Tearpock, D. J., and R. E. Bischke, 2002, Applied Subsurface Geological
mapping and Structural Techniques, 2nd ed.: Upper Saddle River,
New Jersey, U.S.A., Prentice-Hall, 850 p.
Tomlinson, C. W., 1952, Odd geologic structures of southern Oklahoma: AAPG Bulletin, v. 36, no. 9, p. 18201840.
Tomlinson, C. W., and W. McBee Jr., 1959, Pennsylvanian sediments
and orogenies of Ardmore district, Oklahoma: Ardmore Geological
Society, Petroleum geology of southern Oklahoma, v. 2, p. 352.
Trudgill, B. D., et al., 1999, The Perdido Fold Belt, northwestern deep
Gulf of Mexico, Part 1: Structural geometry, evolution and regional
implications: AAPG Bulletin., v. 83, p. 88112.
Weimer, P., and R. Buffler, 1992, Structural geology and evolution of
the Mississippi Fan Fold Belt, deep Gulf of Mexico: AAPG Bulletin, v.
76, p. 225251.
Woodward, N. B., S. E. Boyer, and J. Suppe, 1985, An outline of balanced cross-sections: University of Tennessee, Department of Geological Sciences, Studies in Geology, v. 11, 2nd ed., 170 p.
Zaln, P. V., 1998, Gravity-driven compressional structural closures in
Brazilian deep-waters: A new frontier play: AAPG Annual Meeting
Extended Abstracts v. 2, Salt Lake City, Utah, U.S.A., p. A723.
Zaln, P. V., 1999, Seismic expression and internal order of gravitational
fold and thrust belts in Brazilian deep waters (expanded abstract):
Sixth International Congress of the Brazilian Geophysical Society, CDROM with Extended abstracts, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, August, 4 p.
Zaln, P. V., 2001, Growth folding in gravitational fold and thrust belts
in the deep waters of the Equatorial Atlantic, Northeastern Brazil:
AAPG Annual Convention Official Program Book and CD-ROM, Denver, Colorado, U.S.A., June, p. A223.
Zapata, T. R., and R. W. Allmendinger, 1996, Growth stratal records of
instantaeous and progressive limb rotation in the Precordillera thrust
belt and Bermejo Basin, Argentina: Tectonics, v. 15, no, 5, p. 10651083.
156

Seismic Interpretation

Încărcat de

Informații document

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Seismic Interpretation

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

1

1A-1: Defining folds

anticlinal axial surfaces

Folds come in three basic types:

multiple angular hinges

synclinal axial surfaces

multiple angular hinges

two sets of paired

Part 1: Structural Interpretation Methods