Structural Balancing vs Horizon Flattening on Seismic Data: Example from Extensional Tectonic Setting

Volcano‐Tectonic Evolution of the Christiana‐Santorini‐Kolumbo Rift Zone

“…In order to highlight the dynamics of these tectonic episodes, Figure 4 illustrates the eastern Anhydros Basin from Profile B (Figure 2b) and the eastern Santorini‐Anafi Basin from Profile C (Figure 2c) after successive flattening of key horizons h1‐h5 (Figure 3). This method allows to visualize the approximate geological situation during deposition of each flattened horizon and thereby to reconstruct the general basin evolution (Jamaludin et al., 2015). In contrast to methods like structural restoration, horizon flattening does not take into account slip across faults that intersect horizons or compaction during deposition (Nuuns, 1991).…”

“…In addition, we created reconstructions of the rift basin evolution by flattening key horizons (Figure 4). This simple method levels the seismic profile to an interpreted horizon, which allows the effects of fault displacements to be reversed and, thereby, obtain insights into the deformation of the sediments beneath the examined horizons during the time of its deposition (e.g., Jamaludin et al., 2015; Nuuns, 1991). Horizon flattening is available as a standard interpretation tool in the KingdomSuite software.…”

Architecture and evolution of shelf‐margin clinoforms developed in a back‐arc tectonic setting: Insights from quantitative analysis on the south‐west shelf margin of the Ulleung Basin

“…Structural balancing (structural restoration) is another available tool for identifying and exploring deformation (Groshong Jr, 2006; Nunns, 1991). However, this method has limitations of requiring many detailed parameter values, such as the rock's physical properties, geothermal gradient, rate of strata compaction, rate of basin subsidence, shear strength and shear orientation (Jamaludin et al., 2015; Jitmahantakul et al., 2020). In the present study, seismic horizon flattening instead of structural balancing was used to evaluate the pre‐deformation stage of the southwestern Ulleung Basin to avoid ambiguity from several balancing assumptions.…”

Assessing the rate of crustal extension by 2D sequential restoration analysis: A case study from the active portion of the Malta Escarpment

“…), which are applied to validate structural interpretations or to recover deformation, subsidence or any other tectonic processes to be analysed. As seismic data are frequently not associated with well data, application of sequential restoration techniques provides a powerful tool for the validation of structural interpretation (Jamaludin et al., 2015; Jitmahantakul et al., 2020; Lopez‐Mir et al., 2014), and formulation of kinematic structural models (Lopez‐Mir et al., 2014; Suppe, 1983; Suppe & Medwedeff, 1990). Restoration methods are usually based on ‘balanced cross‐sections’ as defined by Dahlstrom (1969) and Elliot (1983), which are useful for prediction of geometry at depth (Bally et al., 1966; Chamberlin, 1910; Dahlstrom, 1969, 1970; Groshong, 1990; Wang et al., 2017; White et al., 1986; Williams & Vann, 1987), and through which all available data are analysed to ensure that they are geometrically plausible and geologically consistent.…”

“…More recently, greater computational power has led to a significant acceleration in section modelling and restorations (see Gratier et al., 1991; Maerten, 2007, among many others). Thanks to such a technological advance, structural balancing and horizon flattening were applied to rectify seismic interpretation in extensional settings (Jamaludin et al., 2015) or to validate 2D seismic interpretation and to calculate extension in various rift phases (Jitmahantakul et al., 2020). Application of the above‐mentioned methods represents a powerful approach for basin analysis and for detailing how deformation evolves through time in various tectonic contexts (extensional, compressional or composite).…”